Valve antitrust lawsuit reportedly reveals lengths Steam owner is willing to go to prevent cheaper prices elsewhere
14d 19h ago by lemmy.dbzer0.com/u/themachinestops in technology from www.eurogamer.net
Bloomberg cites two high-profile cases referenced in the ongoing lawsuit, one involving Ubisoft, and another Warner Bros.
First of all, I trust Ubi and WB way less than valve.
Valve allegedly threatened to delist all editions of Rainbow Six Siege after Ubisoft offered a cheaper option on its Uplay store.
Yeah.
Because it violates their policy. That's not a "threat", those are the terms of the contract Ubi and WB agreed to. Terms that everyone has to follow.
Heck, Ubi and WB should be hit with a counter suit for trying to leverage their market position to exert control over valve and getting unusually favorable terms.
Clown suit. Ubi and WB are mad they can't break their contract with valve in a one sided way.
edit: I forgot some context:
The deal between valve and a publisher or dev is: they can sell on steam and elsewhere if steam is at least tied in price, or cheaper, but when they sell somewhere else, that includes the steam key and access to steam and steam's distribution at no cost.
What the devs and publishers wanted to do was leverage other features of steam and the steam ecosystem, while undercutting steam's price.
They are always free to just not sell on steam for a cheaper price. That's not what this is about.
edit2:
https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys
"Steam Key Rules and Guidelines"
First of all, I trust Ubi and WB way less than valve.
You shouldn't trust any of them. No billionaire has your best interests at heart. Even Gabe.
That is true, definitely a "lesser evil" situation.
Username checks out
Go to sleep
And in this specific situation, it's valve doing the evil.
How?
Raising the price of video games artificially by abusing their market position to force other storefronts to also raise their prices... Like the suit you didn't read says.
stop acting like prices going down wasnt a play that long term wouldnt result in fucking consumers, stupid to trust ubi
how long has epic games been running on negative profits?
walmart was cheaper than local grocery stores once too
supporting a false race to the bottom is some silly shit
Valve prints money doing next to nothing. Hundreds of people spend years of their lives building a fun game, and almost a third of the revenue just goes to the company who owns the server in the corner that said Dev team loaded it onto, themselves. Dev team sets the prices, Dev team makes all promotional material. What does valve do? Makes a couple graphics for their bimonthly big sales events theme.
What race to the bottom?
This was a game developer that made their own drm that was so successful they basically just stopped making games. They're charge retail margin prices despite being able to sell thousands of times more copies from the same building footprint.
Epic games is losing money because they're giving away hundreds of games instead of selling them. They're trying to buy market share from the monopoly. Not from running the store itself.
lol i can already tell you were not alive pre valve if this is all you think it’s done
the race to the bottom of shit services being cheaper in the short run trying to compete with valve but once valve was say not there would be ripping you off, Epic specifically
boo hoo 30%
as to Epic operating at loss, i know how it works that’s my whole point
My steam account is old enough to vote. I'm just not a dumbass like the taint lickers in here cheering on a multi billion dollar company making their hobby artificially more expensive.
then how the fuck are you blind to everything steam has done for pc gaming? even now valve is literally fighting for consumer rights against payment processor censorship and pretty much single handedly advancing gaming on linux
lol at artificially, if you think epic and ubi are long term positives for consumers you’re an idiot
This is the worst comment I read today, congrats. What in the world...
yay for you?
who actually cares about some randos opinion
in what world demanding price parity equals raising the price of video games artificially?
It's called a cartel, it's illegal, look it up, and stop being a fanboy for some corporation
I'm inclined a little to agree with you, but it's not like he made his money because Gabe refused to be run by anyone. He pays his employees really well. My dad's friend still is working at Valve after going there 20 some odd years ago. He rakes in money like no ones business. But they are all benefitting from the work they have done.
Secondly, nobody knows how charitable he is in his private life. The fact that he's so private about it, inclines me to believe he's probably a decent guy, who just doesn't like the spotlight. He may be a billionaire, but how many billionaires have their employees love them like at Valve?
Lastly, most of his money is tied up in shares of the company, as he is 50%+ owner. He may use that to leverage cash loans, but he's also just smart. He doesn't really do that all that much, except when he's buying his research yachts. And those shares are only accessible by the workers, as it's a private company. Why? Because the money belongs to the laborers who produce the goods.
Now, I'm willing to change my view if there's ever a situation in which Gabe Newall is intentionally trying to avoid paying taxes, but that hasn't happened yet.
Bezos, Musk, Gates, Trump, Zuckerburg, Page, Brin, Ellison, Dell, Huang, the Waltons, Blomberg, Thiel. There's so many worse people out there. I do agree wealth is bad, but what the aforementioned are doing is significantly worse.
Now, I'm willing to change my view if there's ever a situation in which Gabe Newall is intentionally trying to avoid paying taxes, but that hasn't happened yet.
What about exploiting child gambling? Valve's value, and thusly Gabe's value, skyrocketed after introducing lootboxes to TF2, CSGO, DOTA2, etc. He can be as charitable as he fucking wants, but he still defends lootboxes while taking little to no efforts to ensure that children aren't gambling on his platform. He's had... how many years to fix this problem now? Too many. He's not fixed the problem, and continues to reap the rewards in the meantime.
As far as I'm concerned, he's just as much of a piece of shit as any other billionaire. The only difference is that he makes toys that a lot of us really, really like; toys that we apparently like so much so that we're willing to handwave child gambling as long as it doesn't get in the way of making it moderately convenient to download DRM-infested games.
Mate, I did not know parents were not responsible for their own children. That is on me. I'm glad to hear all the work I've done on my network and computers to make them safe for my children was a moot point.
Adults like gambling. It's not Valve's fault that children are using it cause their parents are ignorant of their own child.
As far as the DRM stuff goes, that's all based on the publisher. And it's not that difficult to bypass. Valve has shown time and time again, that they are a business for their customers. Their customers like a solid platform that works and is easy to use and has a community.
Let's take a look a Linux real quick. If it wasn't for Valve, Linux gaming wouldn't be what it is today. They did that and gave it to the community. I'm sorry other platforms can't be bothered to put in that kind of effort. If you wanna play with the big dogs, you gotta get off the porch. And Ubisoft wants to take the easy way out through a lawsuit. They need to do better with their storefront. Offer good exclusives. Try to actually appeal to your customers.
I still remember when everybody bitched about Steam when half-life 2 came out. It was kinda bad, and people were mad about it. But Valve was just ahead of the curve. It allowed them to publish updates, patches, anti-cheating. And soon enough, the community grew to love it. It just worked. If something broke in your game, it was probably fixed in a week if it was a Valve game. It gave so much to PC players.
Adults like gambling. It’s not Valve’s fault that children are using it cause their parents are ignorant of their own child.
If adults want to gamble, fine. Let's enforce gambling laws and get this over with. It would also solve the children gambling problem because that would be illegal. But this is why Valve's gambling service is indefensible. Valve is actively trying to prevent the gambling classification because if it gets treated like actual gambling it most likely stops being profitable. I don't necessarily have an issue with gambling, I have an issue with it not being treated as gambling. And all the other things Valve has done that have been positive for gaming do not justify giving Valve a free pass on gambling.
To bring it back to Gaben, he isn't avoiding taxes but he is avoiding the (gambling) law because it makes him more money, so is it that different from avoiding taxes?
That is a fair point. However, I must ask, what is the different between what Valve is doing with loot boxes v. every single trading card game out there. MTG, Pokémon, Yu-Gi-Oh, or Disney's Lorcana? You are purchasing an item that has items in it that are random. The only reason they have value is because people have the option to just buy skin they want on Valve's marketplace. Just like people have the option to buy a specific Pokémon card from a third party.
The other thing that Valve has done is, there's no inherent value to the item. You can sell items for Steam Wallet funds, to then use in the marketplace. So, to me it seems, it's really easy to set up a Steam account to not be allowed to purchase items. Which would include adding money to a Steam wallet for the marketplace. So, no this is not a "think of the children" issue. It's yet again, another people are bad parents and can't be bothered to use parental controls on their children's electronics. Or take steps to prevent them from spending real money. Or take steps to prevent them from playing too much.
That is a fair point. However, I must ask, what is the different between what Valve is doing with loot boxes v. every single trading card game out there. MTG, Pokémon, Yu-Gi-Oh, or Disney’s Lorcana? You are purchasing an item that has items in it that are random. The only reason they have value is because people have the option to just buy skin they want on Valve’s marketplace. Just like people have the option to buy a specific Pokémon card from a third party.
I don't see how that matters at this point, you've already called it gambling. Are you going to walk that back to defend Valve? After all the only reason to bring up this point is to claim it's not actually gambling. And to address your point, yes I also consider MTG, Pokemon and most trading card games the physical equivalent of a lootbox and a form of gambling. I also know they're not gambling in a legal sense but we'll get to where Valve differs in the next part.
The other thing that Valve has done is, there’s no inherent value to the item. You can sell items for Steam Wallet funds, to then use in the marketplace. So, to me it seems, it’s really easy to set up a Steam account to not be allowed to purchase items. Which would include adding money to a Steam wallet for the marketplace. So, no this is not a “think of the children” issue. It’s yet again, another people are bad parents and can’t be bothered to use parental controls on their children’s electronics. Or take steps to prevent them from spending real money. Or take steps to prevent them from playing too much.
Actually that's no longer true and that's why there was a lawsuit filed against Valve at the start of this year. The items now have a value because you sell the things to get Steam credit and then use Steam credit to buy a Steam Deck and then sell the Deck for real money. It's no longer a closed system, you can get the money out. And once again, this wouldn't be an issue if Valve either a) stopped their gambling or b) adhere to gambling laws.
Holy fuck, didn't realize so many kids were buying and selling steam decks. Damn, got me. I admit defeat. Later, friend.
Oh yeah, strawman the fuck out of my argument, that'll definitely show me.
Ugh, fine. The lawsuit is gonna bust because there's too many steps to exchange the wallet into cash. Most notably, selling the Deck. So, there is no real gambling danger. Those extra steps are what keeps it removed from being considered gambling legally. There, you happy?
Actually I'm sad. I'm sad I'm having a conversation with someone who thinks they know more about the law than the New York Attorney general. I've lost, there's no argument I could make that could get through the Dunning-Kruger.
That is an appeal to authority. Every one is susceptible to a mistake. And I believe this one is. I think the court will rule in favor of Valve if they don't dismiss it. The way the economy works inside of Steam is what insulates it from being gambling. NY is arguing that being able to redeem your wallet for a Deck and then selling that deck, introduces the cash component of gambling. Not only that, but third party sellers are brought up and that adds several other layers that will be harder to make the case for. In addition, they claim Valve knowingly doesn't care about the third party sellers. That, in and of itself, is not Valve's problem specifically. If people want to pay money for a cosmetic item, it's no different than Pokémon. Again, an insulating layer. That is a far cry from an open and shut case, as you seem to think it to be.
Multiple lawyers would point out that introducing steps to acquire cash insulates it. Especially since one of those steps is selling an item. This economy that they are trying to build out is shaky at best. But that's just like, my opinion man. Do you have any of your own thoughts regarding the case? Have you read the case documents and come to a conclusion for yourself? Or are you just reading an article and calling it a day?
Why would I have my own thoughts about this matter? I'm not a lawyer. I'm not even going to pretend to have the competence to understand the legal nuances necessary to analyze this lawsuit. I'm a dumbass so I'm going rely on the expertise of actual experts and the AG isn't going to file a suit on some easily dismissable grounds. So unless you can find someone credible backing up what you're saying you're just talking out of your ass.
Jeez dude, didn't realize you weren't interested in this case. If so, then why are you so passionate about something of which you know so little?
You are willing to put utter faith in articles and people rather than reading the case, looking into it, and coming to a conclusion? And then vehemently defending those opinions of of others. Why?
The fuck kind of an antivaxxer argument is this? If an health expert tells you get the vaccine do you also go "better come to my own conclusion"? Just because I don't Dunning Kruger myself into believing I know enough about the subject matter to form an opinion doesn't mean I'm not interested in the case.
Do you listen to Dr. Oz? He's a surgeon. Practiced. Does that make his medical opinion gospel?
No. Despite his knowledge and understanding of medicine, his claims are not credible because there are a lot of documented instances where he's used his own medical authority for personal gain.
So if you want to go down that route, start proving that the NYAG is not credible.
Credibility does not imply infallibility.
Well you're neither credible nor infallible so why should I even care about your opinion.
Y-yes. So, you should read the case for yourself, so you can make an estimation. The case is a rough outline of how the State is going to attack. You can then, try your best to think of any legal explanation against it. Then judge for yourself if Valve is in the wrong. But I already said that and I feel the looping starting. whoaaaaaa
Yeah, the loop is starting again because you clearly don't see what is wrong with the "don't listen to the expert, do your own research" argument. Fucking genius conversation. You, without a law degree, arguing with me, without a law degree, about a very specific legal gray area like we know what the fuck we're talking about. No, it's stupid which is why I'm refusing to partake in it. I'm not going to act like I know how to make a legal argument which is why I'm pointing at someone who is supposed to know what the fuck they're talking about. I don't get why you want to drag this conversation into something neither of are even remotely qualified to talk about.
Why are you acting like legal arguments are so convoluted? They're usually straightforward and boring. Because they have to be. You're just choosing to not put in effort and instead look at articles. If you want James' actual opinion, read the case.
Dunning Kruger in full effect. "How hard could this thing be that takes years to work through by 6 figure professionals? I can totally make those arguments myself."
And just for your information, I have read the complaint in full. It's another example of you just assuming you know things.
Okay, since you've read it, how do you think the Section I-22,23 relate to Steam specifically? I'm asking you to read those words and try to understand them and make a judgement.
I personally feel like Section II is a typical case layout. But I find it strange about the equivalence made in that Section. Your thoughts?
Do you think that Section III is demonstrating a system in which you are presented the opportunity to gamble? I'll be honest, James' makes a good case. But that doesn't matter because 1999 NY v. Nintendo of America had the same groundwork and was dismissed. The issue came into the case that, Pokémon cards did not carry any inherent value, unless you went to a third party and that third party offered money. Thus, insulating Nintendo from a closed loop system. Let's keep going!
Section IV-A-78 seems to me as a stretch to close the loop. It's the same argument I've aforementioned. But my question for you is, when does the system close in this case? And do you think (87) is a fair comparison? At what point does the proof of an economy constitute gambling? Do we need to go after all blind boxes? Your thoughts, since you've read the case?
Section IV-A-89, at what point is it Valve's responsibility to go after third party sites who are doing what people do in the real world? Attaching monetary value to cosmetic items in video games, I mean. Do you think the SSA obligates them to? What are the chilling effects of that? I feel like that could give corporations a lot of power, and I don't like that.
The listing of selected enforcement opens James' case to a lot of attacks. I think it's a failure on her part, as it will weaken the case in front of a judge if Valve's lawyers just immediately rip it to shreds.
Section V just feels like TCG all over again.
Now the danger to children, again, if we go with this being a danger to children, then ALL TCGs are a danger to children. They open packs looking for rares, right? Same concept. But how are children getting that much access to money? That's starting to sound like a parent problem. Who is letting their kids spend hundreds of dollars? Like, that's just bad parenting.
The Causes won't hold water. They're not air tight and are very vulnerable to attacks. But hey, I'm just an idiot, right? Just another Dunning-Kruger dingbat? Which is just hilarious that you keep bringing it up, misunderstanding the actual study and flaws of it. What would you say that is?
Bro what the actual fuck?
Okay, since you’ve read it, how do you think the Section I-22,23 relate to Steam specifically? I’m asking you to read those words and try to understand them and make a judgement.
Do you even understand what I-22 and 23 mean? There's nothing to judge, there's nothing to relate to Steam because those two points establish the definition of gambling and the law that regulates gambling. This is just laying the foundation for which the rest of the suit is built upon. At this point I don't know if you're throwing out some sort of a gotcha or if you're really that stupid to think those two points have anything to do with Steam or whether there's anything to judge.
I personally feel like Section II is a typical case layout. But I find it strange about the equivalence made in that Section. Your thoughts?
I have no idea what you're even referencing here. Section II seems to establish who Valve is and I think does that but once again, not a lawyer, so I have no idea why it's worded the way it is. Clearly there's some reason to do it that way.
Do you think that Section III is demonstrating a system in which you are presented the opportunity to gamble? I’ll be honest, James’ makes a good case. But that doesn’t matter because 1999 NY v. Nintendo of America had the same groundwork and was dismissed. The issue came into the case that, Pokémon cards did not carry any inherent value, unless you went to a third party and that third party offered money. Thus, insulating Nintendo from a closed loop system. Let’s keep going!
You're going to have to cite the source for the NY v. Nintendo of America lawsuit. Beyond that I can't comment on anything else.
Section IV-A-78 seems to me as a stretch to close the loop. It’s the same argument I’ve aforementioned. But my question for you is, when does the system close in this case? And do you think (87) is a fair comparison? At what point does the proof of an economy constitute gambling? Do we need to go after all blind boxes? Your thoughts, since you’ve read the case?
Of course it does seem like a stretch to you and according to you it's the same argument to the lawsuit that you haven't cited, so I can't comment anything about that. As for the rest, once again not a lawyer, so it's not up to me define when the system closes. I can only give my dumbfuck opinion which is that the system is closed when there's no official way to get monetary value out of the system. You can only dump money into the system but you can't get it out. And what is a fair comparison? 87 explains how CS skins are used as an investment, there's nothing to compare. The rest of what you said is not to me to decide because those are very specific legal points and for the third time, not a lawyer.
Section IV-A-89, at what point is it Valve’s responsibility to go after third party sites who are doing what people do in the real world? Attaching monetary value to cosmetic items in video games, I mean. Do you think the SSA obligates them to? What are the chilling effects of that? I feel like that could give corporations a lot of power, and I don’t like that.
You know, just for the fuck of it let's say this point shouldn't be in the lawsuit, what changes about the lawsuit?
The listing of selected enforcement opens James’ case to a lot of attacks. I think it’s a failure on her part, as it will weaken the case in front of a judge if Valve’s lawyers just immediately rip it to shreds.
You've done such a spectacular job referencing everything else? Why is there suddenly no reference here?
Section V just feels like TCG all over again.
And? Your grand analysis stops there?
Now the danger to children, again, if we go with this being a danger to children, then ALL TCGs are a danger to children. They open packs looking for rares, right? Same concept. But how are children getting that much access to money? That’s starting to sound like a parent problem. Who is letting their kids spend hundreds of dollars? Like, that’s just bad parenting.
Okay, so you don't actually understand why children are brought up. Really showing your expertise here.
But hey, I’m just an idiot, right? Just another Dunning-Kruger dingbat? Which is just hilarious that you keep bringing it up, misunderstanding the actual study and flaws of it. What would you say that is?
Well then go ahead and educate me. You seem to enjoy sounding smart so I'm giving up the chance to be smart.
Bro what the actual fuck?
What? Didn't expect an actual, quick read through of the case file, you claim to have read?
Do you even understand what I-22 and 23 mean? There's nothing to judge, there's nothing to relate to Steam because those two points establish the definition of gambling and the law that regulates gambling. This is just laying the foundation for which the rest of the suit is built upon. At this point I don't know if you're throwing out some sort of a gotcha or if you're really that stupid to think those two points have anything to do with Steam or whether there's anything to judge.
Dude, if you can't see how it relates, you literally can't even continue this conversation. That's how cases work. You lay out the law and prove how the plaintiff is breaking it. So, how does the law relate to Steam is a valid question that will be asked in court.
I have no idea what you're even referencing here. Section II seems to establish who Valve is and I think does that but once again, not a lawyer, so I have no idea why it's worded the way it is. Clearly there's some reason to do it that way.
Okay, so you have no thoughts of your own. Cool. I'm asking you to use critical thinking skills to deduce why? I asked you about the equivalence. That is the key word. Look for the comparison. If you can't, just say so, like you did, and leave it at that. Don't hide behind, "there's some reason to do it that way". Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. What does that add to the debate other than, you don't know how to debate. And you continue to engage, thus continuing the debate, so I'm a little judgemental about this.
You're going to have to cite the source for the NY v. Nintendo of America lawsuit. Beyond that I can't comment on anything else.
Okay, I admit fault here. I was thinking about a 1991 lawsuit that was NY v. NoA. The 1999 is several cases brought from parents against NoA that went nowhere. Here
Of course it does seem like a stretch to you and according to you it's the same argument to the lawsuit that you haven't cited, so I can't comment anything about that. As for the rest, once again not a lawyer, so it's not up to me define when the system closes. I can only give my dumbfuck opinion which is that the system is closed when there's no official way to get monetary value out of the system. You can only dump money into the system but you can't get it out. And what is a fair comparison? 87 explains how CS skins are used as an investment, there's nothing to compare. The rest of what you said is not to me to decide because those are very specific legal points and for the third time, not a lawyer.
So, "You can only dump money into the system but you can't get it out". Where is the limit on can't get it out? At what level of extra steps does it become, "can't get it out"?Because there will always be a way to sell the skins for cash outside the market. That's the whole point here. No, it's not for you to decide, but the people deciding have opinions that may contradict the AG; especially if it gets to jury. So, why have you been acting like James' suit is without fault? I'm pointing out faults and you're hiding behind, I don't know enough and I'm not a lawyer; to prevent having an actual opinion. That's all I'm doing is playing Plaintiff. If you don't want to play Prosecution, then stop playing.
You know, just for the fuck of it let's say this point shouldn't be in the lawsuit, what changes about the lawsuit?
Again, that's the insulating layer protecting Valve. It is literally the crux of the three cause case against Valve. They have to satisfy all three causes to win. Valve just has prove the third one wrong. Because that's the insulating layer. Dude, like, how many times have I made this point?
You've done such a spectacular job referencing everything else? Why is there suddenly no reference here?
Oh, buddy. You said you read the case, so I got tired and thought you could use your intelligence to look it up. Should've been easy. But daddy can do it for you. It won't take a minute. Section IV-A-90. The fact that it was three lines down from my last point is hilarious that you couldn't be bothered. Though, of course, you have no thoughts of your own. You are such a lazybones.
And? Your grand analysis stops there?
I mean, yeah. It's a point I've made multiple times.
Okay, so you don't actually understand why children are brought up. Really showing your expertise here.
And your counter has convinced me. Great job. Why don't you read this study from 2003? It might enlighten you why TCGs are a big point from me. But you won't, because you are a lazybones.
Well then go ahead and educate me. You seem to enjoy sounding smart so I'm giving up the chance to be smart.
"In other words, not only is the Dunning-Kruger effect not merely a statistical artifact at the group level, it also cannot be explained solely by Bayesian shrinkage in the rational estimations of individual participants.” Source That's a recent study from 2021. Feel free to read about it. Or don't, I don't give a shit, mate. I'm just here to have fun.
Can't even bother to link the right lawsuit the rest of your arguments hinge on. Good job.
Did you read the link? Did you try at all? I'm willing to admit a mistake, can you not?
First of all, that is not the lawsuit. That's an article about the lawsuit, something you criticized me for (unfoundedly I might add). And secondly, the lawsuit you referenced was NY v. NoA not whatever lawsuit that article reference because that seems something that was filed in 1999 not 1991 like you claim. Ready to admit your mistake?
The mistake was calling it NY v NoA. It was a civil suit brought by parents. One of many, that ultimately went nowhere. That's the only proof I have to attest to my actual memory of those events happening. Sorry, I don't have the individual case files. I'll go looking for them. But dismissed cases are hard to find without knowing the docket info.
You don't have to go find it. I think we've done enough to prove my point.
There it is. Trying to exit the debate without addressing the topics. Your relationships in life must be difficult ;)
I told you before I'm not going to get into this moronic conversation where neither of us know what we're talking about. Not only did you prove that you want to steer the conversation into that idiocracy you also proved that you don't know what you're talking about. And that was my point, that you can't refute the argument presented in the lawsuit because you keep talking out of your ass and there's no hope of changing your opinion on the matter because you're not interested in any discussion except the one where you get to talk out of your ass. As far as I'm concerned this conversation is over.
Are you disputing a lawsuit even existed? What specifically about my 1999 NYT article verifying my claim of a lawsuit in 1999 against NoA with allegations of gambling. I think it was RICO specifically in that case, but like that's just law stuff.
You keep saying I'm talking out of my ass, but you haven't disproven my points. You're continuing to reply, which means you definitely are invested in this, because you are refusing to admit that you got in too deep with someone who knew too much. So now, the only thing you can do is say we both know nothing. So that way, we are equal. Why are you doing that? I'm sure there are plenty of things you have more knowledge than me in. Just because I'm not a lawyer, does not inherently mean I do not know law. You do realize anybody can pick up textbooks, case studies, and e-mail professors with questions? Like, I don't have to have a degree to know what I'm talking about. I just need knowledge.
You're just not good at this, are you?
lmao im sure there is no money involved at all helping the ag care
And how exactly does this supposed money change the legal arguments made in lawsuit?
because why should anyone care about the legal arguments or any ags actual knowledge about said laws if they only serve garbage companies like epic or ubi (and while pretending companies like draft kings dont exist) and that epic hasn’t attempted the same control that steam has, they just suck at the actual service part
and more to my point, this is really what the ny ag thinks is the best use of their time right now, lmao, not any kind of major fraud going on right now that maybe they want to look into if gambling is so very bad
epic games and its ‘coalition of state attorney generals’ is not self serving at all, epic just just really really cares about consumers!
if you can’t compete, litigate
You're going to have to explain how Epic or Ubisoft benefit from shutting down Valve's gambling machine. If it's "Valve makes less money" then that's an irrelevant point because even if you shut down the gambling money Valve is still raking in cash. Valve simply goes from making an insane amount of money to making a slightly less insane amount of money. Valve losing gambling money is going to have zero impact on the PC storefront space. Valve losing the lawsuit in the article, now that could have an impact on the PC storefront space.
And you know, it's pretty sad that you instantly went to "she's corrupt" instead of even giving the smallest benefit of doubt to the possibility that she might be doing it because it's morally wrong. It's a sad because in your mind morality doesn't exist and corruption is everywhere.
if you can’t see how hurting valve is a direct benefit to epic or ubi we're wasting my time
irrelevant point? lol that’s not at all how business works
i don’t care about the gambling money beyond the hypocrisy of it while sports betting, digital currency markets and fucking polymarket exist, and i’m claiming shadiness because epic has its hand up multiple ags asses in multiple markets, just take a look at apple or google stores as well as valve, epic is funding this politic to its own benefit because it failed so fucking hard competing the real way and the ags see it as an easy target since coalitions cost money
if she actually gave a damn about gambling we’d be seeing her go after sports betting first by sheer volume, draft kings is fucking disgusting
steam is actually doing some positive things for consumers and it’s asinine to start with valve
if you think morality is involved in the american legal system you live a charmed life
if you can’t see how hurting valve is a direct benefit to epic or ubi we’re wasting my time
irrelevant point? lol that’s not at all how business works
Did you even read what I said? Valve losing it's gambling money is going to have no impact on their market share in the PC storefront market space because Valve is already making boatloads of money even without the gambling money. Valve doesn't need to do anything to make up for the loss because they don't need to be greedy. They can eat "the loss" and continue business as usual which means there is no direct benefit for any competing storefront. If anything it might end up being a net negative because (while it probably won't directly impact Epic or Ubisoft) some big studios still use lootboxes and this ruling would further push getting them banned. There's an indirect benefit to Epic of Ubisoft in the form of Valve making less money but when you make insane amounts of money making slightly less insane amounts of money isn't anything Epic of Ubisoft will feel. So yeah, I'd like to see you explain how the gambling lawsuit would directly benefit Epic of Ubisoft.
if she actually gave a damn about gambling we’d be seeing her go after sports betting first by sheer volume
So she shouldn't go after Valve where there's a legitimate case to be made? Because she should be going after some other nondescript entity that she may not even have a case against? Yeah, makes total sense.
if you think morality is involved in the american legal system you live a charmed life
So according to you SKG movement isn't driven by the moral point that we should own the things we buy? So who is funding that initiative? Who gains to benefit from it? Come on, give me the juice. Let me suckle on that conspiracy teat. It's all conspiracies, no good guys ever exists. Ross Scott is a paid actor.
lol you restating your position doesn't suddenly make it true
just because you have no idea how fortune 500s work isn't my concern
if she cares about valve while draft kings, polymarket, tcgs, roblox, and digital coins exist she’s a joke and this is from someone who thinks gambling is a cancer
roblox is literal gacha for preteens in a cesspool with pedos
and she doesn't have a case for valve either lol, this shits going nowhere, this whole ‘think of the kids bullshit’ for a game rated M and a site requiring you be > 13 is just more fud for a real id
it’s not conspiracy to literally google epic using states to sue competition: google apple valve have been targeted for anticompetitive practices
epic games anti trust + state coalitions all while epic has historically come under fire for also being anticompetitive pure lol
and for the gambling charges google all the states + federal governments (eu as well) pushing for online ids for various ‘think if the children’ reasons
Okay, so your arguments are "I pull random shit I won't explain out of my ass" and "CONSPIRACY". Alrighty, bye. Don't let the chem trails throw you off the edge of the flat earth.
spend 2 minutes yourself or don’t, i don’t really care
here’s a entire reddit thread on it you lazy fuck
https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1rqz5i4/steam_support_about_the_new_york_attorney_general/
“In addition, although this case is about illegal gambling, it is important to note that Valve’s promotion of games that glorify violence and guns helps fuel the dangerous epidemic of gun violence, particularly among young gamers who can become numbed to grave violence before their brains are fully developed."
look at this shit, complete fucking fud
this from the aclu
but go ahead and tell me you think the aclu is big on conspiracy theories
That's a whole lot of distraction from the point, mate. If you found out that a casino was allowing children to gamble on their property, would you not want to shut down that casino?
Yes, the parents shouldn't be allowing the kids to gamble. But parents don't always "allow" their kids to do the things they do in the first place. You know damn well you did things as a child that you weren't "allowed" to do, things that you were told specifically not to do. You know that you successfully hid things from your parents, but expect other parents to find everything? Most of this happens completely under the parents' radar.
Addicts steal, and that's no different for children, either. Often they'll take their parent's credit card in hopes that the charge goes unnoticed, or they'll obfuscate the charge by spending money on another currency that gets converted after the fact to one used for lootboxes.
There are even worse things that an addict will do for money. Some may resort to scams; sometimes they'll set up catfish social media profiles to bait gooners into paying them gobs of money for fake pictures. Some may resort to worse behavior; I've seen instructional TikTok videos for children to lure adults onto Roblox for sexual acts, to be paid in Robux, which can then easily be converted into just about any other game's currency. Literal child prostitution.
But sure. Let's blame the parents, instead of the billionaire's child casino.
I could not give a shit. I am a parent of two and no, you cannot watch them every second. But you can watch your bank accounts. You can watch your child play. You can watch your child's behavior change if they start getting really into gambling.
I had an older child I kinda took care of, who thinks of me as a father figure; he has none. He called me one night cause he was 16 and drunk and high and didn't want to drive home. He said, "I called you, because you always said to call you if this happened. I'm so sorry“. I picked him up and helped his hangover the next morning and we had a long talk. That kid is on the ocean sending underwater robots to explore as an electrical engineer. Cause he liked that I did that. EE, not the water stuff lol.
Parents are responsible for their children and children have to learn responsibility for their actions. And that is a lesson that you have to teach your children. The best way is through learning. I've watched my mom raise an addict, so don't you fucking dare try to appeal to me. She was the perfect mom. He just got in with the wrong crowd and went downhill. He's sober now, but it was rough growing up. But she put in a hell of a lot of work into him.
I tell you that, because I'm not here to say we should ban public schools, because that's where my brother tried heroin. I'm not here to say we should fund private schools with taxpayer money, because there are drugs in our schools. It's a fucking bad stroke of luck. Fire and damnnation, this got me hot. Don't fall off your pedestal as you get on your high horse.
I could not give a shit.
I can tell, since nothing else about your comment was at all related to what I was saying.
You're right, I just gave you my personal experiences about parenting children. I even brought up my brother in recovery, distinctly because you brought up addicts. I still stand by it being a parental issue. Don't have kids if you don't want that responsibility. This kind of argument has the same vibes as, "we need age verification on websites". No, we don't. Parents need to be better. I'm a millennial parent and I know how the internet works. I also know that every app nowadays has parental controls built in. Moreso, I can specifically block things on the router. The tools are there. Just be a parent. How many children do you have?
We're really far from the point now.
I'm a millennial parent and I know how the internet works. I also know that every app nowadays has parental controls built in. Moreso, I can specifically block things on the router.
Remember how you found ways to circumvent those things in your youth without your parents knowing? Guess what? Kids still do that. Parental controls only work on children who lack creativity.
You aren't going to be there 100% of the time for your kids. No parent would be. It would be abusive to be present 100% of the time. You're going to trust your kids with a certain level of autonomy, and they're occasionally going to do things with that autonomy that you disapprove of; that's an important part of growing up. Maybe it's swearing, maybe it's getting into fights, maybe it's cheating on homework, or maybe it's buying lootboxes. You can't block everything.
Nobody's saying that you shouldn't try to prevent your kids from falling into these traps. By all means, you should. But you shouldn't expect to be successful 100% of the time. You're going to slip. They're going to slip. That's life.
However, the fucking CHILD CASINO still exists. Maybe you can keep your kids out of it, but there are still kids getting addicted to gambling because nobody is shutting down the child casino. The fact that it exists, at all, should be appalling to any parent; but instead, some of them are defending it because "ohh but they did some good things for Linux gaming". Get real, my guy.
You're right, we are far from the point. At what step in the loot box/gambling process is money exchanged. Then tell me how gambling works. Then tell me if they are the same.
Holy shit, Gabe's really got you by the balls, eh. We've reached the "actually lootboxes aren't gambling" arc.
Insane, the lengths some will go to defend shitty behavior from shitty billionaires.
If it's gambling, loot boxes should be items of value, redeemable for cash, correct? And Valve should be the one providing that cash, as they are the child casino, correct?
The fact that you aren't answering is an answer in and of itself. You can reduce yourself to insults, but it only harms your arguement.
It is gambling, but only as much as Pokémon and Disney's Lorcana. And that's perfectly legal. You would need to go after those practices too. But I think you'd find a hard time with that. You know why? Cause it was dismissed in 1999 in New York v Nintendo of America. Gotta change the law for what you want, friend.
If it's gambling, loot boxes should be items of value, redeemable for cash, correct? And Valve should be the one providing that cash, as they are the child casino, correct?
Yes, that's literally how the Steam marketplace works. Where am I losing you?
Play game. Get loot box. purchase key. get skin...fuck how do I get actual money. Got it, I'll sell it on the market. DAMN, I got steam wallet funds. Okay, if I get $750 worth of items on the store. Okay, that took forever. Now I can purchase a Steam Deck and then I can sell it when it gets here. But let's try to use a different method. There's some third party sites that buy directly, cool. I'll just go through this shady as fuck trade to a random Steam not and get some money in my PayPal.
At which point in either of these processes are you getting USD cash for the items, directly from Valve?
Oh, so now we're at the "pachinko isn't gambling because you have to go across the street to get cash for your prizes" argument. Knew we'd eventually get there.
You see, in Japan, pachinko parlors are "technically" not gambling because you exchange your winnings for cheap toys, similar to exchanging tickets at the Chuck E Cheese counter. Except there's a store directly across the street from the pachinko parlor that buys those toys for, well wouldn't you know it, the exact amount of your winnings!
And since it's "not gambling" in the eyes of the law, it's not damaging, right?
https://academic.oup.com/alcalc/article-abstract/49/suppl_1/i17/105541
Conclusion. This study revealed that the prevalence of pathological gambling, especially among men, was much higher in Japan than in other countries. Pachinko was very popular and was strongly suggested to have contributed to this heightened prevalence.
Oof.
Yes, it's still gambling even if you have to access a grey market to obtain fiat currency. Why? Because obtaining fiat currency isn't a defining factor of gambling.
Where will you take those goalposts next?
Okay, let's get rid of all TCG too. I never argued against the dangers of gambling. I never said it wasn't, it is gambling. But that's not what this post is about. This post is specifically about a NY case against Valve. That requires knowledge of the NY Penal Code. But if you want to continue being self-righteous rather than actually debating the points, then you're welcome to continue this debate with me.
Where will you take those goalposts next?
^ That was rhetorical.
Well, we could always go back to talking about what's best for the children? Those days were good, weren't they? It's still about the parents. We don't admonish parents with regard to other gotchas. Or if you do, then good for you.
Fucking Nintendo and that piece of shit Pokémon company! Fuck Magic the gathering, a bunch of groomers in the 90s trying to get kids addicted to gambling!
GUMBALL MACHINES AND THE GAMBLING OF FLAVOR!
All of those things were specificially degined to encourage addiction to buying the product, like yeah we should do something about those practices when they cross a line. Idk why you think it should all be fair game just because a less problematic version of the issue exists.
What if governments just banned any form of real financial gambling in video games? Valve is still a business, they are going to try and make money, even if it's shitty. Also a parental problem if you are loading your childs Steam account with money 24/7 so they can gamble.
So much wrong with this. Gabe pays his extremely small workforce very well while keeping the lions share for himself. At 300-400 employees getting paid 300k on average, that is only around one hundred million in total payroll compared to 17 billion in revenue.
Gabe is in no way a good guy here. He could afford to pay his workers a cool million a piece and his payroll would still be a fraction of revenue.
Wild conjecture about how much Gabe is trickling down his wealth has got to be one of the lamest excuses I have ever seen. There is no such thing a good billionaire despite your wish Gabe is.
We already determined Gabe is not giving the money to the people who do the work, he is giving them a small fraction, less than 1%.
If you think for a second Gabe is not taking advantage of every tax loop hole his high paid accountants can find you are fucking crazy. He is definitely doing everything he can to avoid paying taxes.
Gabe has a monopoly. He has not used this to increasingly provide cheaper services like a corporation in competition would. Steam's cut should have went down over time if there was good competition. I personally think anything above 10% for a digital platform is crazy.
Gabe has a monopoly.
Had me in the first half, lost me here. Offering a decent service while everyone else shoots themselves in the face does not make it a monopoly.
Steam has 75% of the market share. Microsoft, which everyone points to as a monopoly, has around 65% of the market share for example. Steam meets the definition of a monopoly which is above 50% market share.
Not to mention being sued as a monopoly in several lawsuits and of course engaging in anti-competitive practices.
Steam meets the definition of a monopoly which is above 50% market share.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly
I see "exclusive" in the definition, I don't see "50% + 1".
Not to mention being sued as a monopoly in several lawsuits
I could sue you for running a monopoly. I won't be successful because it isn't true, but I could still bring it to a court. Charges being filled doesn't mean they are true. That's why this is a court case and not a judgment.
From the FTC
"Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. "
Obviously using a dictionary definition isn't what is used in a legal sense. This is kind of silly to point out honestly.
Not only does Steam have the market share it is also engaging in price fixing to maintain their market share. This is classic monopoly behavior.
At this point it is not even a question if Steam is a monopoly. The question is will a judge or government do something about it.
"Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages."
That also doesn't say anything over 50% is considered a monopoly. It just states it won't even be considered one if it's less than 50%.
Yeah, like that is a given. As I already stated, Steam is involved in price fixing. They have engaged in anti competitive behavior thus showing their monopoly power.
It is already conclusive they are a monopoly. If you can provide proof they are not then I will entertain you.
It is already conclusive they are a monopoly. If you can provide proof they are not then I will entertain you.
That is the opposite to how this works. I can't just say "It is already conclusive that you are a prostitute. If you can provide proof that your are not I will entertain you."
Yes, I can say that based upon the available evidence. I have studied enough about monopolies that I feel completely comfortable with saying Steam is a monopoly. I totally get you are in denial. That is okay.
I find it strange you would bring prostitution into this as an example. But, if you knew I accepted money for sex like we know Steam has engaged in anti competitive practice while controlling the majority of the market then I guess it would be safe to call me one. Cheers!
Well, if some rando on the internet has Done Their Research then that's good enough for me! I am convinced!
Thanks! Glad I could help you through this difficult time.
Yes, salaries whatever. Who gives a shit about salaries when there are stocks available for employees. Employees get dividends from those stocks.
If there was $17B in revenue, and just $1B of that went through dividends, that means $500M is going to the employees. Because Gabe owns half, because he founded the company. Depending on how many shares someone has, which is most likely tied to how long you've been at the company, you rake in money. I know, cause I worked for a large corporation that did that same thing. My buddy who's still there is pulling $30k/year alone on that. Granted, that company has a much lower revenue:employee ratio. Valve is at the top of this category. So yeah, people who invest time and work into Valve make bank. As they should.
Hold up, they are not the ones making the content. While a digital distribution network deserves a cut they certainly do not deserve 30%. This is just a form of monopoly rent at this point extracting far more than they are worth taking advantage of developers.
Not sure why you want to defend a monopoly, but it is your perogative I guess. Cheers!
Damn, got me. I didn't realize Steam was the only place to buy games and they're using their market share to inflate prices and gouge customers. You're so right. That's what monopolies do. Specifically, it's when one business owns the sole source of a good. PC gaming is an oligopoly and the other businesses in the oligopoly are mad Valve is doing it better. There is nothing stopping anybody else offering a better deal with the features customers want from Steam.
You didn't realize they had a 75% market share? Please save the bootlicking for someone who cares.
Market Share =/= monopoly. Answer this, what prevents a person, such as yourself, designing and coding a marketplace that meets the feature request of current Steam users?
I get you are in denial they have a monopoly. For instance Microsoft only has about 65% market share and everyone considers them a monopoly
"A monopoly describes a market dominated by a single seller or producer that controls so much of that market share, anywhere from 50% to 100%, that it faces no meaningful competition."
At this point you could even argue they have become a natural monopoly as they have not used a lot of anti-competitive practices. The only way to protect consumers is government regulation at this point since no competitor can reign them in.
Okay, So what prevents developers from pulling their games from Steam? Over 100,000 titles available on Steam vs. 4,000+ titles on EGS , which has better revenue sharing (12%). Surely, they dislike this monopolistic platform. So, why haven't they at least offered their games elsewhere?
You still haven't answered my question. If a Steam equivalent was released today. Had all the same features of Steam. But had better revenue sharing and even an exclusive feature that takes it over the top. Would that product be able to compete? That's one of the questions that will be asked in court soon.
Another one could be, more directly related to monopolistic practices, does Steam take measures to prevent someone from downloading another marketplace and using it instead? The only discipline Valve could receive for being a "monopoly" would be is if the government wants to apply a windfall tax on their profits. Which has yet to happen.
Nobody is even trying to compete with Steam, cause no one wants to. So, what do you recommend happen? The entire Steam team gets broken up and has to develop new marketplaces? How does that work with a flat structure company like Valve? How would the employees, who are very happy feel? The consumers?
These are some of the questions one must answer when dealing with monopolies. Monopoly laws are there to protect the consumer. Therefore, the last question I will posit is this: What is Steam doing that is actively harming the industry and consumers?
Dude, I explained they are a monopoly. You have not provided anything other than conjecture that they are not a monopoly.
I suppose I could field your questions, but considering how resistant to basic facts you are I am not sure I could provide satisfactory answers for you.
I will give it a try though. What prevents developers from pulling from steam. The answer is nothing except for a loss in potential revenue since that is where (75%) the majority of PC gaming software is sold. There is also nothing preventing you from shutting off the power to your house. This doesn't suddenly make your power company not a monopoly.
Whether someone likes or dislikes a monopoly has no bearing on the monopoly. Just because you liked IE in Windows didn't mean that MS didn't leverage their monopoly in an attempt to make it the Internet standard.
Also, the antitrust bit. Steam requires you to sell your product for the same price even if a competitor charges less of a cut. You are not allowed to sell it for less to increase the sales on another platform that charges less. This is anti-competitive and a clear sign of a monopoly.
What would it take for that company to compete. They can't and that is the point. Even after Epic has thrown billions at the issue they have been unable to move the needle. This makes me laugh at your previous question about building your own steam competitor from scratch. Clearly you could do it in your basement with no help when a multi-billion dollar company can't manage it.
Please don't talk to me about court when you can't even agree to a basic fact. While I am not a lawyer I have studied monopoly laws and cases for years. That is why it is crystal clear that Steam is a monopoly.
Your statement about no one competing because they don't want to is false, but if it were true that would definitely make Steam a natural monopoly which I alluded to earlier.
Does steam prevent you from downloading and using another marketplace. No, but Windows never prevented you from installing another browser either. Clearly you are grasping here and I think studying some monopoly cases could help you.
Keep in mind the US government, in particular, has given up on enforcing monopolies in the digital space as seen by their refusal to hold Google accountable for their many monopolistic practices. So don't worry, me calling Steam a monopoly or you accepting this reality isn't going to change shit.
Your questions asking what would happen if Steam was broken up are missing the point. There are numerous policies that could be passed to ensure competition or just regulate the rights of consumers and publishers. I would recommend that Steam's anti-competitive policies be eliminated.
To answer your final question, because of Steams dominant market presence they keep prices high (despite their great sales) and take a disproportionally unfair cut for the work they do. This actively harms customers through lack of competition and anti-competitive practices.
Let me put it this way. If you poured you life into a indie game project and made a million in sales, do you feel a 300k cut is fair? Clearly you would feel that is way too much and it is for a digital marketplace.
Fuck it, I'll bite.
I will give it a try though. What prevent developers from pulling from steam. The answer is nothing except for a loss in potential revenue since that is where (75%) the majority of PC software is sold. There is also nothing preventing you from shutting off the power to your house. This doesn't suddenly make your power company not a monopoly.
How would there be loss in revenue if it were only available through stores which have better profit sharing? You think the people who want that game would not purchase it through a different store? That's literally how Steam got started. The reason developers don't is because they like Steam. I know this intimately.
Whether someone likes or dislikes a monopoly has no bearing on the monopoly. Just because you liked IE in Windows didn't mean that MS didn't leverage their monopoly in an attempt to make it the Internet standard.
That's because Windows was unfairly competing by having Internet Explorer preinstalled. That was what that case was about. I know because one of my family members works in Business Law and has extensive knowledge of monopolies and their standing in court with 20yrs of court experience. Did you know that if the DoJ evaluates a "monopoly" and finds consumers actually just prefer that product and nobody cares to compete, they'll leave it alone?
Also, the antitrust bit. Steam requires you to sell your product for the same price even if a competitor charges less of a cut. You are not allowed to sell it for less to increase the sales on another platform that charges less. This is anti-competitive and a clear sign of a monopoly.
That is not antitrust as the developer could choose not to sell on Steam and use their own launcher and selling service. It would be antitrust if they applied that to other games. E.g. if EGS sells a game, not owned by Epic, for less than what Steam offer and Steam took actions against games on Steam owned by Epic, that would be antitrust and monopolistic.
What would it take for that company to compete. They can't and that is the point. Even after Epic has thrown billions at the issue they have been unable to move the needle. This makes me laugh at your previous question about building your own steam competitor from scratch. Clearly you could do it in your basement with no help when a multi-billion dollar company can't manage it.
Epic has thrown billions at it because they haven't done shit to improve their storefront or community. They don't have hardly as many offerings or community support. Funny how Valve is able to manage a larger community just fine with fewer resources.
Please don't talk to me about court when you can't even agree to a basic fact. While I am not a lawyer I have studied monopoly laws and cases for years. That is why it is crystal clear that Steam is a monopoly.
Ha! I guess my family member who's gonna go to court tomorrow, was wrong about everything. Because I've been sending him our conversation. It is not as crystal as you believe.
Your statement about no one competing because they don't want to is false, but if it were true that would definitely make Steam a natural monopoly which I alluded to earlier.
It's still not a natural monopoly, because of other competitors in the same market space. This definition of monopoly is very difficult to define. Should Valve have to apologize for developers not offering their games on other platforms? Developers can use any storefront they want, but they mostly only use Steam, I wonder why? The option is there, consumers are very well aware of the options, yet they still choose Steam.
Does steam prevent you from downloading and using another marketplace. No, but Windows never prevented you from installing another browser either. Clearly you are grasping here and I think studying some monopoly cases could help you.
No, IE came preinstalled. That's what that issue was. Stop acting like Windows gained market share fairly, as Steam has.
Keep in mind the US government, in particular, has given up on enforcing monopolies in the digital space as seen by their refusal to hold Google accountable for their many monopolistic practices. So don't worry, me calling Steam a monopoly or you accepting this reality isn't going to change shit.
The current climate of the DoJ, as well as, the past three to four decades of the DoJ, is far too intricate and complex to address and relate to Steam. Why you do that? So silly.
You questions asking what would happen if Steam was broken up are missing the point. There are numerous policies that could be passed to ensure competition or just regulate the rights of consumers and publishers. I would recommend that Steam's anti-competitive policies be eliminated.
So, with your suggestion developers can under bid Steam however much they want? Congratulations, you just caused Steam to give away the game for free. They can do it. They have the market share to sustain the loss. You've improved nothing and demonstrated the knowledge you lack in part.
To answer your final question, because of Steams dominant market presence they keep prices high (despite their great sales) and take a disproportionally unfair cut for the work they do. This actively harms customers through lack of competition and anti-competitive practices.
They take 30% which is not unheard of in the mobile world. You can argue on whether a 70% cut for devs is enough, or not. I think it's fine for the amount of service Valve has provided the community and developers.
Let me put it this way. If you poured you life into a indie game project and made a million in sales, do you feel a 300k cut is fair? Clearly you would feel that is way too much and it is for a digital marketplace.
You absolute donkey. It's 70% for the developer and 30% for Valve. Not only that, there are different tiers going up to 80/20. You dolt. You fool. It's finished.
Don't bother biting if you can't chew your food. You will probably choke on your own hubris.
If you can't see not going through the largest retailer as a possible revenue loss I suggest studying business some more and getting back with me.
You keep ignoring Valve's anti-competitive policy. Let me explain it one more time. You can't get a better price at another store if the game is listed on Steam. Your conjecture is pointless unless the developer does not list on Steam and misses out on the majority of the market. If business only cared about ethics and not money then perhaps your made-up scenario would make some sense, but it does not.
The fact that you know Steam intimately is kind of bizarre way to say things. I think I get your point, which amounts to bootlicking because Steam is just the gosh durned best thing for developers since IDE. Pardon me while I go throw up.
Your explanation of the antitrust case against MS is pretty poor. While one aspect related to having IE bundled, there are several other issues at hand that you ignore. Hey, I get it. It is complicated and perhaps you should just discuss these with your authoritative source to set yourself straight.
Please don't tell me how the DOJ operates because it changes with every presidency and as I already pointed out, they don't give a shit about the digital realm because frankly they don't even understand it. They pretty much leave all monopolies alone and that is why we're are in such a shitshow free fall right now. Regulatory capture is real yo!
You don't get to decide what anti-trust is or isn't. I am sorry, but you deny even the most basic of facts so I will kindly ignore your presumptuous statement. If you don't believe me that is fine, but you present no evidence.
We can see Gabe lying through his teeth and surprise surprise, he doesn't want anyone to touch his golden goose. Why you carry his water is anybody's guess but I think it is just general bootlicking, as I alluded to multiple times, unless you have something to say about it otherwise. I also noticed you used some of his talking points, sus!
Your appeal to authority is ham fisted and frankly insulting. PM me your "lawyers" contact information and I will discuss this with them directly. Otherwise gfto with your bullshit.
Natural monopoly is not defined purely by lack of competition, although that can a big part of the definition. I never said that Steam is a natural monopoly, but it does bare a lot of striking similarities. Traditionally it would not be considered one and there is little doubt that I am taking liberties with that comparison.
I think you are correct about Valve pursuing legal and/or punitive action in order for the anti-trust to be legit.
https://www.eurogamer.net/valve-antitrust-lawsuits-ubisoft-warner-bros-report
We can see they did engage in anti-competitive practices. Seeing several lawsuits along with Gabe's outspoken denial of being a monopoly kind of adds up you know. Maybe you think these lawsuits are frivolous or that you are smarter than lawyers who practice in the field.
You have failed to convince me Valve is not a monopoly. The only donkey here is a bootlicker who carries water for Gabe. You have been extremely foolish with your questions and have wasted my time. Cheers!
Confidence from the person who couldn't even remember the proper ratio in which devs get paid. I'm impressed. I'm usually much more reserved when I've made such a ridiculous mistake in a debate.
So, in your scenario, developers should be allowed to open their game store, sell a steam key, at a discount lower than Steam to drive business? Of course that's not allowed and nowhere near antitrust. Try harder.
I said I know, intimately, that a lot of developers like Steam and are happy with them. The fact that your reading comprehension got I know Steam intimately, is indicative of poor language on my part. For that, I apologize.
Of course, the Microsoft suit was significantly more complex. You trivialized it first. So, sorry I did too.
Okay, I won't tell you how the DoJ operates. Weird because there's a lot to it, that can't be simplified the way you have tried, dismissively. But that's what you've been doing this whole time. Go figure.
No, I don't get to decide what antitrust is. Neither do you. Some judge will. Your article is hilarious. What prevents a software developer from putting out the game themselves? Just letting people buy it directly from the developer. Why is that not possible? Oh, right. Market share. I don't want to lose out on all those people right? What if I have an exclusivity period? Sell the game myself for a year and then publish to Steam. Does Steam prevent that? Those are the type of questions that get asked in court. But you can't think that outside the box, apparently.
Appeal to authority, fair. I got someone else for it, and I'll take my lumps for it. I would never PM you their information and that is incredibly insulting to the profession for you to even ask. Lawyers do not say things like this with their name attached to it. The only reason he was even okay with it, was this is anonymous. He would never converse with a stranger about a topic that is highly related to his job and possible cases. Weird you don't know that quirk about lawyers.
Fair enough, the natural monopoly was a misreading on my part. Apologies, as it's late.
Wait, so I'm right or wrong about antitrust? I'm confused.
Oh, lovely. Another article, this time from Eurogamer. I love reading other peoples opinion. I don't read cases, or laws, so I can't make up my own mind. Do you realize the whole fucking point yet? THEY'RE SELLING STEAM KEYS YOU DOLT! Ya know, the things that work through Steam? That's where price parity comes in. You can't sell a Steam offering at a lower price than Steam. If it was only for their UPlay store, or whatever the fuck it's called now, that's fine. But that's not what happened. They sold Steam keys at a lower price. That's not competitive, that's deliberately undercutting a high value competitor to try to gain a market share, while utilizing the resources of your competitor. But, wait, that's starting to sound a little like antitrust.
Are you a paralegal? Cause you sound like one. You say I have wasted your time. But fool that you are, you can't see that you chose your time to be "wasted". I've enjoyed our conversation. I love a good debate and I like how we went back and forth. Folks don't usually commit, but you, I like you.
Saying
you think...you are smarter than lawyers practicing in the field
is patronizing. For the record, the lawyers I know and have worked with, I do not think I'm smarter than them when it comes to law. You call me a bootlicker, but you're the one ready to defend a lawsuit that will ultimately go nowhere from a company that just dealt with their workers going on strike. How's that outsole taste?
Why would you feel a cut is way too much!? Because it is their cut.... Oh yeah that is called reading comprehension something that you apparently lack, maybe it is a ESL thing. If so don't worry English is hard otherwise nice way to burn yourself I suppose. If that is the case I do appreciate self-deprivation humor.
If you read the article that referenced the lawsuit you would see this is not about steam keys. Why you would think this shows a clear lack of understanding of what we are talking about.
I have restated several times what the anti competitive practice Steam has engaged in. I won't say it again because it is getting annoying at this point.
When I said intimately, I was referencing to your deep understanding of development hence the IDE reference. I guess you didn't get it because you are not a developer/programmer yourself. Or maybe it is the ESL thing.
I would agree that plenty of people are satisfied or even happy with Steam. Of course there are a bunch of people who don't like Steam as well. I don't like Steam, but I have used it so I am sure Gabe can wipe away his tears with the money I have given him.
Why would you feel a cut is way too much!? Because it is their cut.... Oh yeah that is called reading comprehension something that you apparently lack, maybe it is a ESL thing. If so don't worry English is hard otherwise nice way to burn yourself I suppose. If that is the case I do appreciate self-deprivation humor.
What are you talking about? Are you okay? I was just saying I must've been confusing, so I tried to add clarity.
If you read the article that referenced the lawsuit you would see this is not about steam keys. Why you would think this shows a clear lack of understanding of what we are talking about.
Umm, real quick; quote the part of the article where it says Ubisoft only sold the game as a part of Ubisoft Connect (looked it up, it's called that now). Because if they sold steam keys too, which they most likely did, as it's an option as a part of their native storefront page for a game, that's a violation of the agreement with Valve.
I have restated several times what the anti competitive practice Steam has engaged in. I won't say it again because it is getting annoying at this point.
Okay, but like, I keep proving you wrong. And you keep saying wrong things. And when you do respond, you have half-assed arguments. Come on, man. Quote the case at me, come on. Read the full NY case and actually argue with me.
When I said intimately, I was referencing to your deep understanding of development hence the IDE reference. I guess you didn't get it because you are not a developer/programmer yourself. Or maybe it is the ESL thing.
Back to the ESL thing. Which is hilarious with your grammar. Regardless, your sentence structure, in the quote you're referencing of yourself, is confusing at best. You quoted me as saying, "intimately know Steam", that's not what I said. So, I clarified and the rest of your message was an angry mess. So, sorry about not getting your little dig, or whatever that was. But to clarify, I studied Electrical Engineering and I have extensive experience in software development. But also, like, who doesn't know what an IDE is? My wife did and she's an accountant. Which...tracks...she's a nerd too.
I would agree that plenty of people are satisfied or even happy with Steam. Of course there are a bunch of people who don't like Steam as well. I don't like Steam, but I have used it so I am sure Gabe can wipe away his tears with the money I have given him.
You didn't mention anything about the Ubisoft strike. I was bummed. Also, ARE you a paralegal? This is getting really nostalgic for me. Lastly, let's keep it going. I'm going to bed, but I hope you get James' case out and come back with some good arguments. You are incredibly smart, and if you read through her case, you could have way better arguments. Instead, you opted for, arguably, sensational journalism that is no more than just gossip. No meat, no substance. See you in the morning!
Just fine here, I can't say the same for you though. Yes, you aren't just confusing. You are straight up mental. That is okay though.
Look, you brought up steam keys AGAIN. What a strange strawman you have constructed. I have never mentioned steam keys, nor has any article I referenced. That hasn't stopped you though.
If you think you have proved me wrong then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. What is that? The bridge guy already sold you several bridges in Brooklyn. That makes a lot of sense.
Not sure what case your talking about, you did not link it or reference it. Honestly you are kind of spooky at this point, but not in a good way. So far your legal mind can be summarized by you not even understanding the one thing Steam has done that I have mentioned several times. I will hard pass on debating you.
To summarize Steam is a monopoly by definition. Thanks for coming full circle with me. It has been a wild ride because you keep jerking the wheel and sending us off road. What are a few bumps though when you eventually get to your destination. Cheers!
Just fine here, I can't say the same for you though. Yes, you aren't just confusing. You are straight up mental. That is okay though.
Yay! You replied! I'm so excited to see what you brought to the table!
Look, you brought up steam keys AGAIN. What a strange strawman you have constructed. I have never mentioned steam keys, nor has any article I referenced. That hasn't stopped you though.
Rainbow Six Siege multiplayer uses Steamplay. So, I'm actually wrong! The DLC is unlocked through a Steam Key, regardless of platform choice (not considering Xbox/PS5). Learning is fun! But, I guess you're not, a developer, or in the industry. So, how could you know. Sorry for not bringing that up, I thought you knew.
If you think you have proved me wrong then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. What is that? The bridge guy already sold you several bridges in Brooklyn. That makes a lot of sense.
I'm certain I have proved a few points of yours wrong. I don't care if you think so, or not. I'm just enjoying a debate.
Not sure what case your talking about, you did not link it or reference it. Honestly you are kind of spooky at this point, but not in a good way. So far your legal mind can be summarized by you not even understanding the one thing Steam has done that I have mentioned several times. I will hard pass on debating you.
What case? Are you stupid? The fucking case we are currently talking about. NY v Valve. The report came from that case, so seeing that case can help understand what we are taking about. I don't think you're a paralegal anymore, if you are, you should be fired lol.
To summarize Steam is a monopoly by definition. Thanks for coming full circle with me. It has been a wild ride because you keep jerking the wheel and sending us off road. What are a few bumps though when you eventually get to your destination. Cheers!
Valve is a monopoly, by definition, could be debated still. Are discussing legal monopoly, or the definition of monopoly? Are you a textualist? I've still argued my points, so you still have a chance to rebut. I've enjoyed the journey! Yeah, I'm am aggressive debator. Some say, a master debator.
Thanks for the chuckle! I appreciated that.
Anytime! I fucking lost anyway. I left a spelling error, so I look like a jackass. Thanks for playing with me and I hope you had fun! I did, sincerely.
sure but i don’t have to waste energy caring because fucking bloomberg tells me to
stop being a useful idiot
No love for those companies but just because you agreed to a contract doesn't mean the clauses of the contract are legal or enforceable.
True, but this deal is that companies stick to the terms and in turn they get access to steams shop, implicitly the community.
They don't have some unalienable right to access another company's customers.
You don't have a "right" to go into a BurgerKing and advertise and sell your burgers there.
... and in a country with rule of law whether a contractual clause is legal would be decided by a court, no?
Yeah, isn't that the point of the lawsuit? That this exact clause is challenged in court?
That clause isn't even relevant to the situation valve is being sued over.
No steam keys or steam infrastructure was being used by selling their own game on their own storefront...a version that wasn't even available on steam. Valve threatened them anyway over the price
Amazon got slapped with a substantial fine (in the EU) for having basically the same "rule" in their contracts, that forbid cheaper listings elsewhere. So yes, in the EU hanging that rule is illegal. But if it applies to digital licensing is another matter.
You do know you're only renting access to the game with a one-time fee, not buying it, right?
Edit: the original comment left it unclear if the price rule only applies to copies sold that include a steam key, or if copies that work completely without steam can be arbitrarily priced. If the latter is the case, it's obviously fine. If it includes any game version, it isn't OK.
amazon's case is different. if you're selling the steam version of your game it needs to match the price on steam. if you have a separate non-steam version you can charge whatever you want.
the reason places like gog follow steam pricing is, why wouldn't they? makes them more money.
if you have a separate non-steam version you can charge whatever you want.
This is the part that was unclear from the original comment. If that's in fact the case, that's obviously fine (and different from the Amazon case).
why wouldn’t they?
it's called "competetive pricing". If I'm a customer and have a steam account holding most of my games (like most PC gamers), why would I even consider buying it anywhere else if it isn't even cheaper and now I got games in like 3-5 stores with at least 2-3 launcher/downloaders/apps. No, this most likely won't make them more money but much much less with fewer people buying it there.
If I'm a customer and have a steam account holding most of my games (like most PC gamers), why would I even consider buying it anywhere else if it isn't even cheaper
I pay the same or sometimes a bit more for GoG games because they are DRM free. Id like better client support on Linux, but DRM free is a value proposition thats usually worth it.
I do appreciate the ability to download a fully offline installer from gog and the requirement that games be drm free. But people keep making statements similar to yours as if steam games have to include some form of drm. There is no such requirement. Steam can simply act as a downloader and patcher. Integrating stream services and failing to start if there is no steam or the active account doesn't own the game is completely up to the developer.
So if they have a drm free build on gog, but the steam hype includes drm, that's cause the developer actively decided it should be like that.
Popular game examples that do not include any drm in the steam version are Factorio and (the original) Kerbal Space Program. Once downloaded, you can freely copy the installation around, and just start the exe. These games start just fine.
I know, i know there are also some utilities to back up steam games. Ive used them years ago. I dont hate Steam by any means, but i really like GOGs philosophy and requirements so I support them where i can, though i will borrow games from the family library if someoen else bought it on steam for the achivements
gog is running mostly on rep, to be fair. don't know about many other stores that don't just sell steam keys.
There have been several lawsuits about this policy, and the more recent class action one is about whether steam is actually enforcing this policy for steam keys only or also for games sold on other platforms without relying on steam keys. I don't think there is any actual written rule about this because it's probably illegal in several jurisdictions but there have been rumors about this since basically the beginning of third party games on steam.
Did you read the article? This is about a completely different version of the game that was not even sold on steam.
i did. here's what it says:
Uplay featured a $15 USD Rainbow Six Siege Starter Pack, but this version was not available on Steam, making the cheapest option on Valve's platform much more expensive.
emphasis mine.
a "starter pack" is a collection of dlc for a game. all the dlc is on steam. the starter pack was not, making the dlc cheaper on uplay than on steam. rainbow six siege uses the steam backend for online play, meaning that the dlc in question is connected to steam, but available elsewhere for less money.
Edit: the original comment left it unclear if the price rule only applies to copies sold that include a steam key, or if copies that work completely without steam can be arbitrarily priced. If the latter is the case, it’s obviously fine. If it includes any game version, it isn’t OK.
Ok. The rule is, actually let me link it...
https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys
"Steam Key Rules and Guidelines"
"You should use Steam Keys to sell your game on other stores in a similar way to how you sell your game on Steam.** It is important that you don’t give Steam customers a worse deal than Steam Key purchasers."**
Just read that paragraph. It should be pretty clear what the whole thing is about.
"It is important that you don’t give Steam customers a worse deal than Steam Key purchasers."
That's a very fair way of phrasing it and should make sense to anyone saying "but what if they want to sell it cheaper elsewhere?" Seems most people don't even understand the actual issue, they just are butthurt over headlines
Yep. Sell your game for whatever you want wherever you want. If you want to distribute your game via Steam (Steam keys), you can't sell them cheaper than they are sold on Steam because you aren't handling the distribution (which costs money).
Otherwise a competing company (like Ubisoft) could just make a 20TB game, list it on steam for a crazy price, then sell Steam keys for it on another storefront cheap; Steam will have to cover the distribution costs without making anything in return.
But it says nothing in your link about selling games that work without steam key on another platform?
I do not see where steam keys are mentioned in the article? Why do you care so much about steam keys if that's completely irrelevant in this case?
because that's what the lawsuit is about. valve has no problem with people selling games on their own store fronts, as long as what they're selling isn't just a steam key. ubisoft wants to sell games on their own store for online games which use steam as a backend without giving steam a cut. you can buy all the anno games for cheaper on uplay than on steam, and that's not a problem. but rainbow six siege uses steamplay.
Not true. Games bought outside of Steam have no access to most Steam features outside of local based ones, e.g. Steam Input, Remote Play.
sure, but rainbow six siege uses all of those things because it's an online game. otherwise there'd be a need to have separated server infra for steam and non-steam users.
otherwise there'd be a need to have separated server infra for steam and non-steam users.
That’s exactly how it works. There are companies whose focus is precisely that, e.g. EdgeGap, but UbiSoft have their own infrastructure.
Why did you think you need an Uplay account to play UbiSoft titles?
so you're saying that the steam version is not using sheam features?
I’m saying that the non Steam version, which is the one the article mentions, has no Steam features, and proof of it is that anyone with Uplay can play online.
so they can't play against people on steam?
They can.
I’m not sure where your questions are leading to. The Steam version either uses the Steam network SDK or UPlay, I don’t know which one. The standalone version uses UPlay alone.
This is nothing new. Crossplay is a thing. Baldur’s Gate 3 allows for crossplay between XBox, PlayStation, and PC, yet it sells on Steam too. But I’m 100% sure the PlayStation version does not use the Steam network.
Steam version probably uses steam networking and Uplay, with the latter being responsible for basically all the online features, and the former only for interfacing with steam.
i was genuinely curious because i didn't know. but it does fall in line with what i thought, which is that: if ubisoft are charging lower amounts for dlc that can also be bought through steam, and that dlc shows up for people who are playing on steam, then they're using steam's services and valve are in the right. if the two versions of the game do not commuticate, then ubisoft are in the right.
Any DLC bought outside of Steam, doesn’t work with a Steam game.
A DLC bought in UPlay, might in some way be used by a third party on a crossplay online game, e.g. a map which both the buyer and their friend on Steam can access to, if the buyer creates a game in such map and invites their friend.
And Steam doesn’t take a cut of such sale and cannot set the price, because it wasn’t sold on Steam. Plain and simple.
okay, and you're sure of this? thanks for clearing it up in that case.
but then surely it's against their tos, no? like, if a hat is 50¢ on uplay but 100€ on steam and players on steam can see uplay players wearing the hat, isn't that a case of price disparity in the product? it's not a steam key, true, but if ubisoft were allowed to set prices like that it would almost certainly count as anticompetitive practices, right?
That "hat" bought outside of Steam, cannot be used by a player in Steam.
but if ubisoft were allowed to set prices like that it would almost certainly count as anticompetitive practices, right?
Are you really saying that Valve should be allowed to set the prices of Ubisoft products, but Ubisoft shouldn't be allowed to price their own products? What?
Why stop there, then? Why wouldn't Steam go after, say, Playstation? Someone gets an exclusive DLC for Playstation that some players can "see" during games, what do we do in that case?
no, obviously i'm not saying that. i'm saying that by having content in the game that costs different amounts for different players playing together on the same platform (pc), ubisoft aren't following the terms they agreed to for selling on steam.
They are. Nowhere it says that a publisher cannot sell their games outside Steam at a different price. Valve employees then threatened Ubisoft with delisting the game if they did.
In any case, none of the competing stores have dislodged Steam from its role as the most important sales channel for PC games, and Valve employee testimony and corporate records disclosed in the case illustrate the aggressive ways the company has interacted with the developers that rely on it. Emails indicate Valve employees once threatened to delist all editions of Ubisoft’s Rainbow Six Siege “by end of day tomorrow” after they learned the publisher was marketing a separate $15 “starter pack” exclusively on its in-house Uplay store.
From the Bloomberg article: https://archive.ph/YvHxF
i was reading through the court documents earlier (i linked them in a comment) and while i don't doubt that bloomberg knows better than me, that wasn't the feel i got from the emails. it started with valve employees asking internally if it was a tos violation, then reaching out to ubisoft, then the demand to change the price on steam to match. the docs are heavily redacted so some details escaped me but... idk.
It's more complicated than that. Technically, you're right, if the game entirely relies on steamworks for networking you can only play with people on steam. A lot of indies/AA actually just did that for a while because they just connected players P2P (so, no dedicated servers, which would necessarily be "outside" of steam's ecosystem) and crossplay was too complicated, so there are a lot of multiplayer games out there that you literally can't play crossplatform, at least in a user friendly way (shadow warrior 2 comes to mind, where you can actually connect the GOG version to the Steam version by entering a console command and knowing the other guy's IP).
Big publishers like Ubisoft definitely had the developers and the money to roll out their own crossplay architecture and code very early though, and they absolutely did. Basically, if the game has dedicated servers it most likely has crossplatform.
Nowadays a lot of UE games just rely on Epic Online Services for crossplay. I think you can actually use it with non-UE games too but there might be licensing shenanigans involved.
r6s isn't unreal though, it's anvil.
Yeah but you're not gonna see many AA or indie games made with anvil. My point was that your original assumption that a game using steam networking won't be able to "talk" to the same game using another platform's networking is somewhat correct, and basically still is the case for games that can't afford crossplay solutions, with the notable exception of EOS.
i don't know if that was ever the question. rather it was whether they've chosen to split them up or not.
The steam version probably just uses steam features through some library/interface/whatever that simply implements calls to the relevant code depending on the game's build (steamworks for steam, Xbox live or whatever they changed it to again, PSN, epic online services, etc..) for platform-related stuff like rich presence, joining servers etc. I don't know the specifics of R6 but I've worked on multiplayer, multiplatform games, and I really doubt they have a specific network stack for Uplay, another one for PC, and then another one for each console. Especially if it has crossplay.
More likely it's all going to ubi's servers (through their own crossplay solutions and servers, or through a third party like EOS) and just implementing the aforementioned platform specific stuff to make the experience smooth for the end user.
I'm not a law guy but I don't think the other platforms pricing thing was ever about a "steam version" of the game, as that rule would be easily circumvented by releasing another "version" where the black background on the title screen is a slightly different shade of black than the steam version or whatever.
well no, the integrations are what i'm talking about. not saying that valve is hosting their own r6s servers, just that by using steam features and having the same game (eg able the connect to the same server) on two stores it falls under their "parity" policy.
That is another situation
Amazon is a seller. Steam is (aside from selling) a service provider with their workshop, forum, etc
While it would be way better if those were all in a different tier for devs, so for example they can select to get less of a share for those features, what they are basically doing is sidestepping a provider
Or in the case of photography:
You go to a Photo shop and lend their camera equipment and services for free, but they take a 20% cut for every copy of that picture sold.
If you buy a picture, you can download it indefinitely and get some services like changing the color grading on the website. The photo shop hosts the picture for free and only makes a profit through selling licenses. The owner also has an option to get infinite licenses for these services for free.
What youre allowed to do is host the picture on your own, pay your own cloud provider, and sell the picture that way.
What youre not allowed to do is generate infinite licenses for free and sell them without ever paying the photo shop for their services, while still using them.
The service part only applies to copies sold that include steam keys and therefore use the steam-API related things (workshop, cloud saves). I haven't read about this specific case in detail, but as long as that use of steam for copies sold is part of what they wanted to leverage but essentially not pay for, that's obviously bull.
This honestly is somewhat unexpected and I had to re-read the comment I replied to to understand it correctly, hence my misunderstanding of that aspect. It's unexpected cause ubisoft in particular for the longest time had their own "store" and games required at least their own launcher. I haven't played Ubisoft games in at least a decade, so I don't know/remember if the games reuired your own ubi-account, or if the games relied on Steams systems (workshop/cloud saves/...). I would've assumed no, and that they only use it as a downloader cause players essentially wouldn't buy it outside of steam (or at least not enough).
Top be clear: if steam allows copies of a game listed on steam to be sold at an arbitrary price as long as that doesn't include a steam key, this is perfectly fine. Actively thinking about it now I would assume it does, as I'm pretty sure I bought games without steam keys for less than the listing on steam was.
Calling Amazon just a “seller” is an understatement. It’s like saying that the Google Play store is just an hosting platform. Amazon provides ad and marketing services, hosting, support, and more importantly, logistics.
Games sold outside of Steam have no access to Steam features, in the same sense that products sold outside of Amazon aren’t promoted and delivered by Amazon.
Have you ever bought a game via a Steam key? Those use Steam's infrastructure for distribution while not providing them (Steam) any income.
As someone that has entered so many Steam keys over the years (over 1,000) yet only bought maybe 20 games from Steam I almost feel bad, but the dev was following the rules and Steam is okay with it (as long as they aren't selling those keys for less than they can be purchased on Steam for).
Steam keys are a drop in the bucket.
Regardless, this case isn’t about keys either, but Valve pressuring publishers to set prices of games sold outside of the Steam ecosystem entirely.
Amazon provides ad and marketing services, hosting, support, and more importantly, logistics.
Yes, but if its not sold on Amazon, they don't do these logistics.
Games sold outside of Steam have no access to Steam features
And steam allows that too. Their only problem is with distributing the steam keys yourself for less.
The act of reading is something only the fewest people can do, apparently
Yes, but if its not sold on Amazon, they don’t do these logistics.
Right, exactly like Steam.
Their only problem is with distributing the steam keys yourself for less.
The act of reading is something only the fewest people can do, apparently
Perhaps you should read the Bloomberg article first: https://archive.ph/YvHxF
OK, I know English is hard, but you should at least know what alleged means.
This article describes allegedly that that is happening. The same way I can say that alledegly my guinea pig has just started to talk to me in perfect English. It means literally nothing until either lawsuit no. 4 suddenly finds this to be true (yes, there have been at least 2 before, all of them dismissed afaik) or out of nothing you find some clause saying this is true
Either that or Mii Mii lends you their hard drive.
Your asserted that
Their only problem is with distributing the steam keys yourself for less.
Which is not true.
From the Bloomberg article:
Emails indicate Valve employees once threatened to delist all editions of Ubisoft’s Rainbow Six Siege “by end of day tomorrow” after they learned the publisher was marketing a separate $15 “starter pack” exclusively on its in-house Uplay store. In 2017, Kassidy Gerber, who works in business development at Valve, wrote to Warner Bros. executives that preorders for its new Middle-earth: Shadow of War game had been deleted from Steam because the price was “significantly higher than what was available at other retailers for the same version of the game.”
From the lawsuit itself, point 16:
Valve also requires game publishers to agree to give Valve veto power over their pricing in the Steam Store and across the market generally (the “Price Veto Provision”). Valve selectively enforces this provision to review pricing by game publishers on PC Desktop Games that have nothing to do with the Steam Gaming Platform at all. Through this conduct, prices set in the Steam Store serve as a benchmark that leads to inflated prices for virtually all PC Desktop Games.
English is hard, amirite?
This article describes allegedly that that is happening.
Of course these are "claims". That point is made in the Eurogamer article, and the Bloomberg one, and the lawsuit. If your point is that whatever journalists write should be summarily dismissed unless there's a final and binding judgement from a court of law, I don't know what to tell you other than that is not how journalism works.
But were they selling Steam Keys? Sounds to me like Ubisoft was selling a UPlay version of the game for cheaper than the Steam version, which probably didn't include a Steam Key.
If the UPlay version also included a Steam Key, then yes, Ubisoft would have broken the terms of contract, but that seems unlikely to me.
I think its fair enough for Valve to require that Steam Keys, which use Steam infrastucture, are not sold for less than Steam sells them for, since Valve wouldn't be making any money on them, but would still have some of the costs associated with delivering the product (and depending on how much Steam infrastructure they use, matchmaking, anti-cheat and other things).
But requiring that keys for other Stores, with their own infrastructure, are never cheaper that Steam is definitely monopolistic, shitty and probably illegal.
Its weird to me that all articles I have found about this issue don't actually mention this crucial detail.
Valve allegedly threatened to delist all editions of Rainbow Six Siege after Ubisoft offered a cheaper option on its Uplay store.
Yeah.
Because it violates their policy. That's not a "threat", those are the terms of the contract Ubi and WB agreed to. Terms that everyone has to follow.
I do like Valve more than most companies, but this is absolutely monopolistic behavior.
I do think the R6 Siege situation is a bit different, to my knowledge it was about Ubisoft adding a new cheaper "Starter Pack" option that lets you access a multiplayer-first game on different terms. It seems scummy to give users playing the same game on the same servers different terms on different storefronts.
I'd question even if this is true. OP wrote it like they read the contract lol.
But even if it's true, it's not like publishers have a choice. You can't say no and not release your game on steam because it's the biggest store by far. Valve is literally abusing its monopoly to reinforce its monopoly.
They're also being sued because this situation is completely different from the clause mentioned in the policy.
but when they sell somewhere else, that includes the steam key and access to steam and steam’s distribution at no cost.
Ubisoft selling the game on Uplay, their own storefront, does not include a steam key with the purchase. The clause you just listed IS NOT RELEVANT to the situation. Which is why valve is being sued.
They're offering a version of the game that isn't even available on steam (so doubly no steam key), and were told that doing so at a lower price would have valve removing all versions of the game for sale. This is blatant market position abuse to fix pricing.
Who the fuck is upvoting your blatant misinformation?
Definitely not a forgotten detail. There is clearly a campaign against valve brewing for reasons that are less clear.
Hence, the antitrust. If you have the qualities of a monopoly you don't get to partake in certain business practices. Like the language in contacts limiting competition.
Valve allegedly threatened to delist all editions of Rainbow Six Siege after Ubisoft offered a cheaper option on its Uplay store.
Yeah.
Because it violates their policy.
And that policy only exists because monopoly enables them to set anti-trust/anti-competitive practices and further cement their position by ruining competition's chances.
Imagine there's a huge fuel station that's so big they essentially set rules towards suppliers that they can't offer their gas to other stations at a cheaper price otherwise they can't sell it in their station with 95% market share.
If you don't see a problem with this as a customer, then don't forget to support your local billionaire by paying a 30% fee for each game purchase (and that 30% cut also exists due to no one being able to take on steam, ridiculous amount of money).
I'm slowly getting tired of gamers defending Gabe like he's Jesus when in reality valve is a corporation doing corporation things.
EDIT: Billionaires have became rich in 100% ethical ways, they do not overcharge, they do not abuse their market position, they most definitely don't bribe Microsoft and other entities, etc. Now give upvotes, redditors
40% of the market is not a monopoly.
It's 75-79.5% depending on what data you use. Quite a big mistake on your part.
of the pc market, yes. that's like calling tesla a monopoly when they sold 75% of electric cars.
Are we not talking about PC market? Steam is a PC platform. What are you even talking about then? Steam market share on PS5?
we're talking gaming, of which pc is a niche. a shrinking one at that. nobody is claiming sony has a monopoly on the ps5, ubisoft and wb are seemingry happy to pay them.
nobody is claiming sony has a monopoly on the ps5
And Valve didn't create PC. What a bizzare argument.
we're talking gaming, of which pc is a niche
What a bizzare argument. Nearly half is "niche"? Shrinking?
You people become weird when defending corporations.
but valve created steam, which the publishers willingly signed up for even though both ubisoft and wb games have been on pc for longer than valve has.
i think that graph also needs mobile to get the full picture, but i'll concede that i based my statement on old numbers. the market share seems to be holding steady. still, 40% seems about right.
by the way, i'm using "niche" to mean "smaller part of", maybe that's not the correct usage. blame esl.
pc is a niche. a shrinking one at that.
Absolutely not. PC is growing, and continues to grow year after year. Consoles are on a slight decline, but PC has never really stopped growing.
You're really gonna need to start citing some sources at this point.
yeah i backed down from that in my other reply.
Yes because the other platforms are worse in every single fucking way. You can’t say oh it’s this huge awful monopoly when it’s only that because the rest purposely fucking suck to make as much money as possible (gog is fine).
Monopoly implies there are no alternatives. There are plenty of alternatives. People just choose Steam because the other ones are (mostly) crap.
That’s not the legal definition of a monopoly.
Is not Google a monopoly in search and online advertising, then?
Yes, it is.
For most people, google is the only search they use.
Are you saying Yes, it is the legal definition; or Yes, Google is a Monopoly?
Yes it is a monopoly.
The legal theory that market consolidation doesn't matter so long as prices don't rise is bullshit and a big reason we have such shitty politics today.
There are many buyers or sellers, but one actor has enough market share to dictate prices (near monopolies)
Yeah but why do they have that market share? It's not forcefully. They aren't buying up competitors. They don't own all the publishers and can dictate who sells their games.
People choose Steam. Why? Because Ubisoft Connect it horrendous to navigate. Because EA App is slow and, when it launched (as Origin), left a bad taste in people's mouths because it bordered on spyware. Epic Launcher is kinda getting better but when it launched it was extremely bare bones, it didn't even have a cart to buy multiple products at once, you had to buy things individually, which is absolutely ridiculous for an ONLINE STORE .
This so-called monopoly is not a product of predatory methods, quite the opposite. Valve may be a corporation but they constantly set standards in favor of the consumer:
- Generous refund policy
- Unparalleled customer support, as opposed to their competitors basically giving the finger to users asking for help.
- Actively working towards wider support and accessibility, i.e. SteamOS, Steam Deck, and their runnable-verification markings.
- Just recently announced the "real requirements" stats from players sharing a games' performance on their actual hardware rather than the developers Recommended Requirements which we all know are complete bullshit. They are literally forcing developers to stop cranking out half-assed games with non-existant optimization for $70.
Definition of Monopoly according to Merriam-Webster:
exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action. specifically : exclusive control of a particular market that is marked by the power to control prices and exclude competition
None of this applies to Valve/Steam, all they're guilty of is setting policies in favor of the consumer. People tend to choose the consumer-friendly seller.
Who'd've thunk?
Generous refund policy
Added it after a lawsuit regarding steam not wanting to properly process refunds. Epic has it better automated and GOG processes refunds regardless of your hours if you have technical difficulties, so in my eyes Steam is in the last place.
Unparalleled customer support
Steam support is commonly regarded as non-existing. The only times I needed it, I got automated replies and my issue was not solved.
Actively working towards wider support and accessibility, i.e. SteamOS, Steam Deck, and their runnable-verification markings.
Making your product accessible is just business. I don't really use any of that stuff since I'm only on PC.
Definition of Monopoly according to Merriam-Webster:
This is one of those words where definitions vary, but generally if a company has such a large market share/power that they can dictate prices and set rules that affect other platforms/competition, then that's monopoly/near monopolies. Valve Corporation does this.
all they're guilty of is setting policies in favor of the consumer.
Riiight, because ripping off gamers and devs with 30% cut (a cut that stayed from physical discs and times when 100gb HDD costed 5000eur) is so in favor of the users. The whole gambling thing and mystery boxes was also done to promote ethics to children, right?
My guy. I deliberately left out GOG in my comment because they fill a different niche in the market,, DRM-free and generally older games. The bureaucracy of refunds is probably alot less complicated.
You're probably the first person I've heard say Steam has bad customer support.
They are not making "their product accessible", they are making other people's games accessible by providing an open OS for gaming outside of the Microsoft Windows system.
Again, having a large market share because you simply provide the best service is -not a Monopoly-. How do they in any way dictate prices? Ubisoft are free to sell their game for half the price on their store front if they want to.
I'd happily pay 30% to Steam for all the service they provide over 100% to Ubisoft's reskinned, buggy, unoptimized quarterly "games" or EAs microtransaction simulators any day.
You're probably the first person I've heard say Steam has bad customer support.
Steam customer support was a fucking meme back in my day. You also got oceans of videos like these: https://youtu.be/kE0QtkTNUqk
How do they in any way dictate prices? Ubisoft are free to sell their game for half the price on their store front if they want to.
I.. are we speaking English? Do you simply refuse to read and get new information? I mean, sure, they can, but they will get angry emails from Valve Corporation and threats of suspended sales, no pre-orders, etc., because that's what a near monopoly does to further cement their position on the market, and I don't even want to think about the future with different CEO and valve having basically grown into the next google or microsoft with Gabe long gone
i mean, sure, they can, but they will get angry emails from Valve
So? Maybe they should put more focus on improving their own platforms instead of whining about Steam, then they could sell their game exclusively there without issue.
I don't know I can make it any clearer; Steam has a big market share because people choose them, not because they use any hostile tactics to push out the others. Ubisoft and EA, among others, have for years done everything in their power to lose any good will from the player base in favor of their shareholders.
Correction: Steam has the largest market share because for majority of it's existence, it had no competition. It already became a standart before others appeared. That being said, Valve has increasingly become evil during the past decade. I was fully on board with supporting valve, but not fixing fees, supporting and defending gambling, inventing subscription passes, supporting in-app purchases, abandoning games and not using their ridiculous money to develop things people want like Half-Life 3 (don't even get me started on TF2 mess, almost entire community holds grudge against Valve for enshittifying it like a corporation that only cares about profits). Sure, Valve also does some things that are great for gamers, but I feel like it's our duty as a society to keep these companies in check, otherwise it's a slippery slope where if they're no longer being held accountable for shitty things they do, it will become a normality.
I'm seeing some parallels to Elon Musk where everyone was praising him as an anti-corporate dude who's going to save everyone from oil or whatever, while few guys were screaming about red flags they're seeing, but everyone ridiculed them
I mean, there is only other platform that functions like steam (Epic store) because GoG focuses on DRM-free games, which is better than Steam pushing for DRMs.
That being said, Epic lowered the fees and showed steam what's a reasonable tax (I'm sure you've heard about Epic v Apple). Sure, they're not as feature rich as they're quite new, but you cannot deny the fact that both GoG and Epic does some things that are great for us, customers.
Games are surely cheaper on Epic then since they take a smaller cut? Right? Right....? Since they do it for us.
Edit: I deleted my previous comment because I felt done with this conversation. Apparently I'm not.
If you're a developer, then yes, you make more money for your work. Whether the developer takes the extra money or makes the game cheaper, is not really in Epic's control.
Exactly. The publishers want to satisfy their shareholders by forcing Steam to lower their fee. Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor? Polish up Uplay and sell games from other developers too. Bam, fixed it.
Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor
And now we've gone full circle and came back to Valve anti-trust practices, the ongoing lawsuits and their status of near monopoly. Like, you literally cannot do that if you want to sell your games on steam too.
if you want to sell on Steam too
Yeah, if you want to sell on THEIR platform then follow THEIR rules. Like wtf?
Like a said in another reply, Steam has a "monopoly" because 1. Players choose it, and 2. Publishers keep selling there.
If you can't sell your game solely on your own platform, then maybe there's a problem with YOUR PRODUCT.
Yeah, if you want to sell on THEIR platform then follow THEIR rules. Like wtf?
I don't think I'm capable of convincing you that this is anti-trust competition practice enabled by near monopoly, which is bad. You would not get such stupid rules from Epic or GoG.
I guess the only thing I can say is that be glad that current CEO of valve isn't as bad as other CEOs, but it won't stay like that and it feels like we're slowly creating a monster. All corporations, without exclusions, should be kept in check
I agree there, we probably wouldn't get those rules from GoG. But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share, well, I don't know what to tell you. Steam enforces No Advertising in games and taking active steps in forcing developers to actually optimize their games. In no universe would EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, Epic or any other so the same. We'd have commercial breaks in our 2fps games years ago.
But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share
Don't you see how you're accidentally proving my point here?
I see how you think I am.
I'm saying that having a clear winner in an open market is not the same as them having a monopoly. Assassin's Creed games releases on both Steam and Uplay. Same price. Same game. Same everything. Why do people still choose Steam? It's not because they are forced to. They have the option to simply not buy it on Steam. That is why I don't think Steam is liable.
Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question.
Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question.
Steam has major market share and it's not a good business decision to ignore that, so publishers are forced to submit to Valve's rules, unless they're ready to take the loss.
In a fair world, all these publishers would likely sell cheaper on their own platforms, which is good for you, the customer, but that won't happen with Valve setting rules, and so there is no reason for customers to make a switch, and so other platforms can't compete.
Epic gained some traction by giving away free games, but that's basically the best they can do.
Ask yourself - how can any other company be competitive in the current environment? How would you even go about building your own platform when the very basic thing (pricing) is basically regulated by the big guys?
Listen. Steam is free. Uplay is free. Epic is free. EA App is free. It's not like Playstation vs Xbox, where the market is divided because of financial limitations on the consumers. What stops anyone from using any other launcher? What stops any publisher from not selling through Steam? "market share" is not really a valid argument when all options are free and easily available to everyone. Monopoly means lack of alternatives.
Right now the option is buying a game for $70 on either Steam or EA App, for example. People choose Steam.
Nothing is stopping EA from saying you know what, we'll sell it only on our own page but for $60. Nothing. People who want to play a game would most likely just buy it there then.
My view is that these lawsuits etc are purely a way for the failed competitors to force their way in while still providing the same absolute garbage of a service.
This is not what I'm talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want.
The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it's status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam.
Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don't have a reason to use other platforms.
gamers don't have a reason to use other platform
Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don't want to. It's easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve.
.....
How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this?
Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope.
See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic.
It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay.
So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right.
They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is.
No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve.
It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit.
EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth.
Imagine there’s a huge fuel station that’s so big they essentially set rules towards suppliers that they can’t offer their gas to other stations at a cheaper price otherwise they can’t sell it in their station with 95% market share.
That is specifically not what is happening.
https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys
"Steam Key Rules and Guidelines"
"You should use Steam Keys to sell your game on other stores in a similar way to how you sell your game on Steam. It is important that you don’t give Steam customers a worse deal than Steam Key purchasers."
Valve does not "dictate" prices in any way.
Ubi and WB are free to sell their games for as cheap as they want. But if and ONLY IF they offer a steam key with the purchase, they can't undercut steam.
This isn't about steam keys, it's about a most favored nation clause. It's a fairly common clause when selling across multiple platforms. It can be considered anticompetitive in some cases. It's also pretty standard in retail agreements. It's why name brand products are generally the same price everywhere.
The same thing would happen if Walmart found Sony was selling PlayStations cheaper on their website than in store.
It's not even that. It's about Steam apparently trying to enforce a clause that doesn't exist. The most-favored nation clause applies to Steam keys only, but Steam allegedly sent Ubisoft a nastygram about them selling a non-Steam version for less.
Please read the article.
"give us your money or let us install cookies" yeah no I'd rather not read the article then.
“I will opine on something I refuse to learn anything about, as it is my god given right”.
Sounds about right.
Okay my guy, whatever you say <3
Do yourself a favor and read the article before commenting on it.
Just for you, I gave Eurogamer my information to farm and sell of to the highest bidder. And I learned nothing new. Ubisoft want to have their game on Steams store, Steam says "alright sure, these are the requirements". Ubisoft breaks that agreement, Steam says "then we won't sell your game". Okay? So? No one is forcing them to sell on Steam if they don't like it.
Those requirements being that they cannot price the product lower outside of Steam, even if the specific version of the software doesn’t use Steam at all.
And by the way, this wasn’t on a contract, it’s a non written policy uncovered on email correspondence between Valve and Ubisoft.
Maybe you should try reading the article for real this time.
Speaking of God Given Rights, "we want to sell our games on Steam but not on their terms". Don't like it? Don't do it. "but they have the largest market share 😢" , because you keep selling on their platform. I don't understand how this shit is so hard to grasp.
See, this is the reason why it is important to read the fucking article.
A few years later, Rosen started his own game distribution program, allowing customers to pay whatever they wanted for a collection of indie games called Humble Bundle. The program, which Rosen ran with his brother, took only a 5% cut but, he says, was still turning a profit. Rosen started looking more closely at Valve in 2018, when it implemented a tiered system that gave rate reductions to large game makers, angering indie developers who were stuck paying the higher rates. Rosen reached out to the company again, this time to see how it would react to him selling Overgrowth, another Wolfire game, at a discount on Humble Bundle’s store. “They replied that they would remove Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere,” Rosen wrote in a May 2021 blog post (https://www.wolfire.com/blog/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-class-action/) explaining why Wolfire decided to sue Valve.
Emails indicate Valve employees once threatened to delist all editions of Ubisoft’s Rainbow Six Siege “by end of day tomorrow” after they learned the publisher was marketing a separate $15 “starter pack” exclusively on its in-house Uplay store. In 2017, Kassidy Gerber, who works in business development at Valve, wrote to Warner Bros. executives that preorders for its new Middle-earth: Shadow of War game had been deleted from Steam because the price was “significantly higher than what was available at other retailers for the same version of the game.”
Honestly, I'm astonished at the near cultist behaviour I'm seeing here. This is a multibillion operation in a dominant market position, pulling the rug on publishers because of an internal policy that requires "material parity" with prices on Steam, which, given that they get 30% of the sale price, forces higher prices everywhere else where they don't take such an outrageous cut.
I really hope you folks have the same sympathy for your landlords.
None of that first paragraph is in the article OP linked lmao, at least not the one I can see.
Why would Steam put your game on their site for free, giving it exposure to potential buyers, just for the buyers to turn around and buy it cheaper somewhere else? Steam only takes a cut on sold copies.
Xbox, Ubisoft, EA, Blizzard/Activision, Epic, Rockstar, all have launchers. Hell, even Amazon has got a game launcher.
Had any of them been better than, or at least as good as Steam, people would probably buy a game there if it was not listed on Steam.
From my previous response: https://archive.ph/YvHxF
I understand that you refuse to read sources, but the comments you are responding to? That's a new low.
Why would Steam put your game on their site for free, giving it exposure to potential buyers, just for the buyers to turn around and buy it cheaper somewhere else?
Because it's not their fucking product.
If I go to, say, Amazon, because I want to buy a Samsung TV, and then I go to the Samsung website and find that the same TV at MSRP is cheaper, should Amazon be allowed to force Samsung to raise their prices so they cannot compete?
The answer is no. It's called abuse of market dominance and is codified in the Sherman Antitrust Act.
"But hurr durr Steam is better I love GabeN"
Who. The. Fuck. Cares. Being better doesn't mean that you get to bully your suppliers and customers. That's just insane and such a childish argument.
And Steam is not their fucking platform . If Amazon where to set such a policy, well then just fucking stop selling there. It would come crumbling down on itself. You people don't seem to realize the responsibility of the sellers in keeping companies like Valve at the position their in. You can't have the cookie and eat it, which is exactly what they are pushing for with these lawsuits.
But yeah, let's kill Steam and watch EA put commercial breaks in their games, MTX just to progress in the story, subscription to even continue to have access to your games, always-online for the most basic single player games just so they can keep track of you.
Steam only takes a share on sold copies. Having YOUR game on THEIR site while selling it cheaper on your OWN site would effectively be leeching free exposure off of Steams front page. How is it not reasonable for Steam to not want that?
Steam only takes a share on sold copies. Having YOUR game on THEIR site while selling it cheaper on your OWN site would effectively be leeching free exposure off of Steams front page. How is it not reasonable for Steam to not want that?
Seems that Steam has reach and power that most publishers cannot afford to ignore, whereas in an earlier comment you said that "nobody forces developers to publish their games in Steam". Turns out, they kind of have to after all.
The question here is, why should Valve be allowed to set the prices of software they didn't create?
According to you, a developer who gets a better deal in, say, the Epic Store, and thus publishes their game at a lower price there, should be delisted from Steam. Do you really think that's reasonable? Doesn't that sound like an abusive business practice?
I don't get it. Steam does not have a chokehold on supply of servers, hardware, software, personnel, investments, nothing. Steam has a huge base because people like their platform.
If the big publishers would pull out of Steam, you think it would survive? If Ubisoft and EA and Rockstar and all of the others decide hey, we're just gonna sell on our own platforms from now on, you think Steam would prevail anyway? Counter-Strike is not THAT profitable.
The CORE ISSUE is not Steam having a 30% fee, it is THE OTHER PLATFORM ARE CRAP and people rather not play your game than install Uplay.
And again, Valve are not setting any prices. They do 2 things,
- Set their fee
- Won't accept you using Steam as a free advertisement window
Look, I don't like the 30% fee either. They could lower it drastically and probably still be fine. But make no mistake; if, say, EA had launched an equivalent to Steam in the early 2000s, today it would be common practice to have Ads in the launcher, Subscriptions for "better deals", Fees for adding more games to your library, Spyware, and don't think they would have more generous fees for developers. If anything, they would have a HIGHER fee than 30% and if anyone tried to launch a competing game launcher they would buy it up and shut it down.
Stop acting like Valve isn't the best we could ask for out of all the alternatives.
Stop acting like Valve isn’t the best we could ask for out of all the alternatives.
I'm going to stop right here, because this is absolute nonsense.
There are plenty of big tech companies out there that are the "best" at what they do, and still shouldn't be allowed to do shady and illegal stuff. Simple as that.
If we are going to forgive this behaviour just because "people want games", then I'm sorry to say, but this society might be more fucked up than I thought. Probably beyond salvation.
Panen et circenses with a side of billionaire cock.
You want to punish Steam in favor of the shareholders of the likes of Ubisoft, who is really gagging on billionaire cock here?
I couldn't care less about Ubisoft or their shareholders. But just so you know, Valve is roughly ten times bigger than Ubisoft, and this suit was filed by the founder of Humble Bundle. So go ahead and wipe your chin now.
Humble Bundle isn't even mentioned in the article shared my guy.
Humble Bundle isn’t even mentioned in the article shared my guy.
A few years later, Rosen started his own game distribution program, allowing customers to pay whatever they wanted for a collection of indie games called Humble Bundle. The program, which Rosen ran with his brother, took only a 5% cut but, he says, was still turning a profit. Rosen started looking more closely at Valve in 2018, when it implemented a tiered system that gave rate reductions to large game makers, angering indie developers who were stuck paying the higher rates. Rosen reached out to the company again, this time to see how it would react to him selling Overgrowth, another Wolfire game, at a discount on Humble Bundle’s store. “They replied that they would remove Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere,” Rosen wrote in a May 2021 blog post explaining why Wolfire decided to sue Valve. (In its response to Wolfire’s suit, Valve disputed Rosen’s description of what occurred on the call.)
https://archive.ph/YvHxF#selection-1867.0-1879.103
Just... Read it. I pasted this link three times already. It makes no sense for me to keep posting if you willingly ignore every single fact.
My apologies! Genuinely.
Now, from what I understand, Rosen had his game in early access on Steam for like 5 years. And the game was hosted solely on Steam. Things that cost Rosen nothing. Then, Rosen wants to sell keys directly to the costumers rather than through the very service used to distribute the game, effectively bypassing paying Valve anything. Valve says that's not ok, Rosen sues them, and somehow Valve is the bad guy?
and other online stores have rarely offered features compelling enough to lure people away.
The fear among some developers is that doing so can lead to penalties or even expulsion from Steam — a potentially devastating outcome for their game sales.
The US lawsuit Newell was deposed in, which has been certified as a class action, alleges that it “is not economically feasible” for game makers to leave Steam in favor of a rival store and that they are effectively “forced to comply” with Valve’s rules and high fees.
The above quotes all point to exactly what I've been saying: Other stores/platforms simply don't appeal to users.
“Customers have enormous choice,” Newell has testified. They can decide “where they purchase their products, whether they buy the game on an Xbox, whether they buy it on Steam, whether they buy it on Epic Games Store or whether they buy it directly from software developers.”
No one is forcing anyone to use Steam.
EA experimented with everything including opening its own PC store and stopping major releases on Valve’s marketplace, only to reverse course and eventually bring big-name titles such as The Sims 4 and Battlefield V back to Steam.
Competing marketplaces, meanwhile, have failed to match even Steam’s basic capabilities, never mind its emotional resonance with users. EA’s original store was filled with glitches and had nowhere near the number of third-party titles as Steam, while Epic’s rival launched without such standard features as user reviews and a shopping cart for purchasing multiple games in a single transaction.
They tried, and failed, to launch BFV and Sims on just their own platform because IT WAS A BUGGY MESS. Not because StEaM hAs A BiG MaRkEt ShArE.
Not even having a Cart in your online store is mind boggling. Also, if I have to go to Steam to see reviews I might as well buy it there.
In 2017, Kassidy Gerber, who works in business development at Valve, wrote to Warner Bros. executives that preorders for its new Middle-earth: Shadow of War game had been deleted from Steam because the price was “significantly higher than what was available at other retailers for the same version of the game.”
So Valve protected their own brand by not wanting to be associated with "significantly higher prices". Sounds like a sound business decision to me.
Feel free to share it, I'm not paying for it.
I hope that, at some point, you get to appreciate the irony of not wanting to accept some cookies because you don’t want to “pay with your privacy”, while you ardently defend Steam, a platform that doesn’t even tell you what they do with your data or who are they selling ads to.
Here’s the archived version from Bloomberg: https://archive.ph/YvHxF
Tell me, what have Valve done that is so evil? In your own words
Uplay doesn't offer steam keys. The game version they were selling wasn't even available on steam.
Steam keys have fuck all to do with the monopolistic shakedown that valve is enacting to fix PC game prices.
Stop blindly supporting this bullshit behavior. It's right there in the article you didn't read.
If i give you free advertising, a solid store page, and the damn server to host your games with free steam keys for the dev (Amazon doesn’t even fucking do this. Authors need to pay for their damn ebooks at full price for instance) and you go out and sell those fucking keys cheaper and spend my money doing it so i make nothing, what the fuck do you expect to happen?
I don't think you understand what this is about.
EDIT:
Uplay featured a $15 USD Rainbow Six Siege Starter Pack, but this version was not available on Steam, making the cheapest option on Valve's platform much more expensive. It's claimed Valve insisted Ubisoft swiftly remedy the discrepancy, giving the publisher "until the end of day tomorrow" to change that.
This isn't about keys and devs abusing the system, but competition and monopoly.
I love valve as much as the next PC gamer, but I agree their rules should not affect what publishers do entirely on other platforms.
The amount of people in this thread that are arguing that steam is fully within the right here due to the fact that they have a restriction on steam key pricing blows my mind.
for example with the UbiSoft case, It's clear they have never actually opened or used Uplay because if they had they would realize that Uplay does not use Steam keys period at all. They are their own distribution platform that distributes off of uplay servers.
The entire point of the lawsuits is going one step further, which is that despite steam having a policy that says it's for keys only, they unilaterally enforce it on all platforms regardless of the usage of the keys.
Now whether that's actually true or not is what the lawsuits have to determine. But that is what the claim is. Personally I'm leaning towards it's true because I've seen some screenshots posted about customer service saying that's how it worked and threatening to delist steam games for cheaper first party distribution pricing elsewhere.
I'll be curious where these cases go.
If you can buy from GOG do it. Need to make sure viable competition sticks around plus they actually let you own the game
they actually let you own the game
Let's be clear. Both Steam and GoG sell you the same licence for a game.
Steam comes with optional DRM that requires you to use the Steam client. Whether or not this DRM is present on a game is the publisher's decision, not Steam's.
Steam could certainly be criticised for providing the functionality but it's not mandatory.
Cyberpunk 2077 on Steam for instance has no DRM and can be run without Steam. Even if a game has Steam DRM it's usually trivial to bypass it.
The official Stean documentatikn even says Steam DRM should not be used as antipiracy because it's easily bypassed
I really wanted GOG to be a viable competition, but their years and years of broken promises are not going to make me leave Steam.
...such as...? Whenever I'm shopping for a game, I check GOG (and 3rd party sites for steam keys via ITAD) before I buy from steam. If it's available on gog and drm-free, that's where my money goes.
The only issue I see with gog is that devs don't give a shit. One and done, one pump chump. Why give customers choice, when you can be jerking it with their money already instead?
They can't even keep their original promise of DRM free games.
For example, they thought they could get away with selling latest Hitman with its always-online DRM, and only changed their minds after the backlash.
Also, from the beginning they've been promising to support Linux.
Nothing but empty promises so far, they didn't even have the decency to publicly admit it's never happening.
Valve, meanwhile, didn't promise anything, but quietly funded the development of Wine and all kinds of related open source software.
Thanks to their work I've been able to completely ditch Windows a few years ago.
For this reason alone I'm glad to buy from Steam whenever I can.
GOG isn't really competing in the same market as Steam.
Most importantly, GOG games don't include Steam keys, which is what's the issue here.
Steam lets publishers include Steam keys if they don't sell them for cheaper than on Steam.
These suits have nothing to do with steam keys.
I read that elsewhere. Maybe it's fake news, maybe it's not all cases. Idk
Yeah the valve boot licking brigade is out spreading that falsehood for who knows what reason. I've heard of 3 lawsuits. None of them are about steam keys.
Steam lets publishers include Steam keys if they don’t sell them for cheaper than on Steam.
Then how come official retailers like GMG are consistently able to sell Steam keys at 10% discount for nearly every new AAA release on launch?
Cause they're key retailers without a platform. Steam already got paid for those keys.
GMG also publishes games. They're like the only games with the same price on both sites.
I don’t know what I have to do to get a game listed on GOG though. I don’t buy a lot of games but I think the last three I tried to buy were all unavailable on GOG. There’s that page where you can wish for a game on GOG but I’ve no idea how effective that is.
GOG only sells DRM-free games. If a game isn't there, it's probably because the developer/publisher refuses to allow that, requiring DRM in their game.
GOG takes the same 30% cut though and they have less features and dont improve linux compatibility like Steam does with proton. I dont see the benefit of using GOG
GOG uses GenAI for marketing.
Eh, take some leave some. I'm as anti AI as any other, but comparing those negatives with the positives GOG brings it's a little better than a wash. You actually own the game and I'm 99.9999% positive that somewhere in steam's multiple streams of revenue ai is being used regularly and heavily.
Such a weird stream of comments to be read on Lemmy.
Regardless of what you folks think about Valve, does anyone believe that a marketplace should have this kind of leverage over their suppliers? For instance, should Amazon be permitted to force manufacturers to set the price of a product outside of their marketplace? Should Apple be allowed to force app developers to price match the Google store?
FYI: Eurogamer is owned by IGN who is owned by Ziff Davis.
IGN has been known to write hit pieces against competition for Ziff Davis and their partners.
I want to make something clear about the Valve Anti-trust lawsuit currently making its way through the court system.
This case is predicted on the idea that Valve's "Price Parity Clause" in its contracts with Game Devs is anti-consumer and anti-competitive.
The original lawsuit filed by Wolfire before this became a class action Anti-trust lawsuit is available online and it alleges a couple of things.
-
Steam is two separate services that are lumped together in an effort to maintain its market share.
-
It uses this market share to enforce a Most Favored Nation Clause.
-
The Price Parity Clause does not only apply to Steam Keys but to all e-shop sales outside the Steam store.
-
The Price Parity Clause is actually a Most Favored Nation Clause, aka a Price Veto Provision.
The reason that people are claiming this is about Steam Keys is because the original lawsuit filed by Wolfire says that it is. This is what most of the articles that are actually written about this exempt from their writeup and since they don't provide source documentation (from the filing), they lack this context.
The lawsuit is literally about whether or not Valve applies and enforces their Price Parity Clause to not just Steam Keys but also to non-steam storefronts that do not at all use Steam Keys.
If you are arguing that this isn't about Steam Keys, your information is inaccurate and based not on the court filing but on articles that exclude information from the court filing.
If you're saying it's solely about Steam Keys your information is contextually right to some small degree but just as incomplete and therefore just as incorrect.
Because of the nature of the claims in the Wolfire lawsuit (some of which are actually demonstrably false), it does not lend creedence to the other claims being made by Wolfire (on which the class action is relying).
One of the most notable discrepancies between what Wolfie claim and what is legally proven to be true thus far is that Steam does not make a 30% commission on Steam Keys. In point of fact, Valve do not claim any percentage of sales figures from Steam Keys at all. Only sales made directly on the steam e-shop are charged the 30% fee.
The second major one is that the clause in their contract with Steam on which this is predicated is specifically about Steam Key availability and use.
So far as I can tell, there is not a difference in these particular parts of the lawsuit between the class action and the original lawsuit that was dismissed in 2021. So Wolfire's original lawsuit and the Class Action still state that Valve does these things and this lawsuit is as much about Steam Keys as it is about Price Parity/Most Favored Nation type market tactics and clauses.
I believe they have not changed this wording because they cannot remove their Steam Key argument from the lawsuit because without it they do not have a written Steam Policy on which to rely.
So far as I can tell Wolfire and the Class Action claim that the Most Favored Nation Clause is only spoken of in person and is not part of the official contract they signed or any such contract that Valve offers for Steam services. It is unclear if this is their own claim or something they point to as being true based on alleged Microsoft Employee statement.
If I come across more information on this I will try to post it, but I might not remember.
I do wish we could stop posting articles with sensationalized claims and horribly clickbait titles that don't actually providing even a link back to the sources of their information and claims.
I believe there is a separate lawsuit happening in Europe and I haven't delved into that one to this degree.
There's also a separate lawsuit alleging price fixing between Microsoft and Valve. I have not looked into that one at all though I did come across it in my rabbit hole dive.
If anyone can direct me to a non-account required court filing for the two video game developers that sued Valve I would like to see them. So far it looks like the court filings were originally separate but have been combined into a single court filing and that court filing doesn't use the same language as Dark Catt's singular filing did.
https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.298754/gov.uscourts.wawd.298754.1.0_1.pdf
https://lawfold.com/valve-lawsuit/
https://www.classaction.org/media/wolfire-games-llc-et-al-v-valve-corporation.pdf
https://gameworldobserver.com/2024/03/14/sweeney-vs-steam-cut-epic-tirade-gaben-emails-revealed
https://newsletter.gamediscover.co/p/revealed-tim-sweeneys-epic-rant-to
https://aftermath.site/gamers-sue-microsoft-valve-steam-antitrust-lawsuit/
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.300801/gov.uscourts.wawd.300801.1.0.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/it/ip_21_170
Ah, I see the valve bootlickers are already here. Lemmings hate companies, unless it’s Valve.
Cookiewalled article. Pay with your data or pay with money.
they're saying that publishers can't take a higher price on steam than on other platforms. basically they don't want their customers to pay a premium for using their platform.
But steam is taking an additional 30% for themselves. So the customer is always paying that premium.
if prices are the same, then the publisher is the one paying the premium.
Not of the publisher is just pricing it 30% higher. Remember: they wanted to sell it for a lower price on their own stores and valve was against that.
So now the consumer has to pay more everywhere
the deal the publishers make with valve is that steam versions of games need to be priced the same everywhere. if they're not offering steam keys they're free to set any price.
also, if a publisher "wanted" to sell it for a lower price all they needed to do was lower the price everywhere. that's not what's happening.
It's insane how many people are spreading this bullshit. This is explicitly for stores not using Steam keys! You're right that they should be free to set their own prices. If you actually believe this, you need to be against Valve in this, assuming it proves to be true (which there is solid evidence already it is true).
but... it's not. if you read the article, they made a dlc bundle on their own store where all the dlc was on steam, for cheaper than they were on steam.
... they made a dlc bundle on their own store...
Their own store, which does not use Steam keys. That means they should be free to set their own price, right? Steam should only have a say when it's using Steam. They shouldn't get to dictate the price on other stores.
You're arguing against your own best interest here. I don't know if you understand that. A game being cheaper to buy somewhere else is good for all consumers. Sure, their store is worse. That's why they're competing with a lower price. You can choose to pay more and use the better service or pay less and use the worse one. It may even cause Valve to try to compete with the lower price by lowering it themselves. This is good for consumers. We get cheaper games for no cost.
rainbow six siege is an online game that uses steam's backend. as such, all the dlc uplay is selling is in the form of steam keys.
i would love to have cheaper games. i would also love if people learned to read.
Do you have a source for that claim? I have seen no evidence that the uplay version of the game uses the Steam backend to verify ownership. They have their own store that does this. Why would it use Steam? That makes no sense. The article does not make this claim, and I've seen no one else making this claim. Valve doesn't even seem to be making the claim you are.
The only claim is that Ubisoft, on their own store using their own systems, was selling it at a cheaper price than is available on Steam, not that they were using Steam for this. Youre claiming I need to learn to read, but I think you might be reading something that isn't there.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59859024/348/7/in-re-valve-antitrust-litigation/
page 120ish, section 5.2.2, footnotes 519 and forward.
it's the emails in question. i'm reading it as "content parity" is the most important thing for valve.
Dude, you keep changing what you're arguing against. It was about price parity, then it was about them using Steam keys, and now it's content parity.
First, this document has a lot of detail about them forcing price parity. I don't know if you just skipped that, or if you're no longer arguing about that. It's wrong, correct?
Second, I still see no evidence they're using Steam for their sales on their platform.
Third, the case we were talking about has content parity. The DLCs are available on both platforms, but they're cheaper on uplay. That's content parity but not price parity. Are you just trying to throw out so much garbage I forget what we're talking about and just go along with your premise?
Also, content parity isn't good either. For example, if a studio wants to create a small bonus DLC for buying the game somewhere that gives them more money, they should be allowed to. Why should Valve be dictating what a developer can create off of their platform? That doesn't benefit consumers. It only benefits Valve. Let's be clear though, they are also forcing price parity. I'm not agreeing to the premise it's only about content parity, as I discussed above.
no, i'm just easily confused.
my reasoning is this: if players on steam and uplay can play together, and see the dlc other players have, and prices of that dlc vary between stores, that counts as "the same product" having a different price. potentially players could transfer dlc from uplay to steam if they require a uplay account everywhere. in that case, ubisoft are violating the terms.
if that doesn't hold, then valve are overreaching.
overall it's muddy.
I'm pretty confident you can't just transfer a purchase between play and Steam. If you can, it's something that Valve has allowed explicitly. It isn't a normal behavior of Steam. Valve can choose to stop allowing that anytime they want.
If they were threatening to remove this function (which I don't think exists), then fine. That's not the case though. They're threatening to remove them from the Steam store in total for selling it for a cheaper price elsewhere.
last time i played a ubisoft game on steam it required uplay, i don't know if that holds for r6s but if it does then that's probably not something valve likes. maybe you can't transfer items, but you can fire up uplay through steam and get cheaper dlc for your "steam version" that way?
again, i don't know.
if they’re not offering steam keys they’re free to set any price.
Read the fucking article. They're being sued BECAUSE they threatened to remove a game because a different version that isn't on steam (no steam key) was being sold elsewhere for cheaper.
The thing you said isn't happening is EXACTLY THE THINGS THEY'RE BEING SUED FOR DOING.
Stop it
the starter pack was not available on steam. that means it's a collection of dlc. the online nature of the game means that dlc is also available on steam, it's just the package deal that isn't. that's textbook the thing they outline in their policy.
That is not what will happen in practice.
Not exactly. If you buy a game on Steam, Valve takes a 30% cut of the first $10Mn in sales of that game and then lowers that cut as the game makes more sales.
BUT that 30% cut does not include Steam Keys. Steam Keys are free to generate and for use on non-Steam e-retailers. Valve do not make a 30% cut from Steam Keys.
Allegedly, WB and Ubisoft and Wolfire/Dark Catt have stated that they were told they can't sell non-Steam Keys at other retailers for cheaper than the same game is sold on Steam.
So the question is, do WB and Ubisoft and Dark Catt/Wolfire actually have proof that Valve is forcing them to sell non-Steam Keys at other retailers for cheaper than they do on Steam.
Or, do they specifically mean Steam Keys can't be sold for cheaper on other store fronts (which makes a whole lot of sense).
Steam isn't just the retailer in this scenario but the manufacturer. The companies/devs who own the game license Steam to produce their product at scale.
Yup. It would simply be more fair if this rule would be applied after distributors took their cut. Let devs make their games cheaper when platforms ask for a smaller share. That‘d only be reasonable.
I like Valve as a company, but this is exactly what antitrust laws are for. I hope the due course of justice is followed and the appropriate consequences result if any impropriety is found.
you can get cheaper prices elsewhere all the time. look at humble bundle (idk if they're still around but thats where a lot of my games came from a while back), green man gaming, or any of the console app stores. depending on who has sales when games are cheaper all the time. y'all are falling for propaganda trying to discredit one of the only decent companies left in gaming written by their competitors and their competitors' friends. try thinking a little before just following the social media hive mind because you've spent the last couple decades seeing proof that this is a blatant lie.
What if we turn it on it's other side and say: In the interest of its customers, Valve prohibits publishers from selling for a higher price on Steam than somewhere else.
remind me again how Gaben is a GoOd BiLlIoNaIrE?
The suit, which is ongoing, centers on what the developers alleged was a tacit company policy designed to punish them for offering discounts at competing online stores. But instead of defending the purported rule, Newell just denied it existed. “Valve does not have a policy or practice of dictating prices to third-party software developers on other platforms,” he said, according to a previously unreported transcript of his deposition. Presented with internal communications in which Valve employees appeared to be enforcing the rule, Newell repeated his denial, at times verbatim, again and again. When an attorney pressed him on how Valve would react if a developer did charge less money for a game on a competing store, Newell demurred. “I’m confused by your question,” he said, before later adding, “Many of our partners and many of our customers are quite happy with the service that we’re providing.”
from the bloomberg article.
Thread number 768 wherin Lemmy users pretend not to know what a monopoly is cause they love Steam so much.
Valve allegedly threatened to delist all editions of Rainbow Six Siege after Ubisoft offered a cheaper option on its Uplay store.
Similar tactics to Amazon
What? I made a purchase from Epic instead of Steam since they didn't make the MENA currency change and as a result many older games are significantly cheaper on Epic in my country.
For example Celeste's base price on Epic is 66 cents in my country with no discount (currently on %75 discount) versus 10 USD with no sale and 2.5 USD currently on Steam.
Why is Anno 2070 still not on GOG?
Finally an article that actually goes through anticometitive behavior. Its europe so I get it. If it was the us I would be a bit miffed since its long standing behaviour amazon and walmart has been doing so they should go after them first rather than this niche thing. I am of course assuming europe either does not have amazone and walmart or has already restricted them from insisting suppliers give them the lowerst or equal to pricing on their platform.
If steam wants lower prices, they should subsidize the cost of games for their users. The problem is solved.
can’t be doing that steam.
stopping people from undercutting you by selling steam key cheaper elsewhere and avoiding steams cut, sure.
mandating price parity in other situations, no bueno. gonna lose this one probably
You know, this reminds me of a little story. There was a small family owned supermarket. They wanted to expand. What better way to do that than offer better prices than your competitors? And what better way to prevent competitors than opening up that store in a small city. So, that's what they did. The government let them. And then that store drove local business out. That allowed them to raise prices and continue that business model until they were the largest employer in America.
This seems to me, that Ubisoft wants to play, but has nothing unique to offer other than their games. The store front is terrible. There's no community. And there's always issues when I'm trying to play with friends. Never any issues on Steam. I don't know y'all, this just seems stupid. I hate Ubisoft though.
Oh look, yet another example of the very thing that most of Lenny is denying happens in that other thread from yesterday.
Yeah I hope Valve loses this in favor of developers and consumers. If another platform asks for a smaller share devs should be allowed to set a lower price.